Health Utility Score in Thai Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Pre- and Postoperative Analyses

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) can increase the health utility score (HUS) of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who require the surgery. HUS varies depending on the geographical or living environment. HUS in CRS has never been evaluated in Thailand. The objective of this study was to evaluate the HUS of Thai patients with CRS before and after ESS through multiple approaches.

METHODS

Thai patients (age ≥ 18) with CRS scheduled for ESS were enrolled in this prospective study. The preoperative (baseline) demographics, 22-items sinonasal outcome test, endoscopic score, and CT score were recorded. The HUS was evaluated using four methods: the EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Standard gamble (SG), and Time trade-off (TTO); at baseline, three months and six months post-operation.

RESULTS

Data from 60 patients were analyzed. The mean baseline HUS scores by EQ-5D-5L, VAS, SG, and TTO were 0.75, 0.65, 0.79, and 0.85, respectively. The postoperative HUS significantly improved to 0.96, 0.91, 0.96, 0.97 at three months, and 0.97, 0.92, 0.97, and 0.98 at six months, respectively. ESS raised the HUS by 0.12-0.27 points. Among the four methods, VAS showed the lowest HUS at all time points.

CONCLUSION

The preoperative HUS in Thai patients with CRS generally increased to near-perfect values after the ESS. The increase in HUS reflecting the improved general quality of life, was demonstrated at three and up to six months after ESS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 134:2070-2076, 2024.

Evaluating health utility score through direct and indirect methods in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

INTRODUCTION

EuroQol-5-dimensions-5-levels (EQ-5D-5L), visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) are used for the assessment of Health Utility Scores (HUS) of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aimed to determine the overall HUS of CRS, the factors which influence the HUS, and the preferable method.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Patients with primary CRS were recruited. Clinical and socioeconomic data together with HUS were assessed. Four HUS scores determined from the four different methods were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 335 patients were enrolled. The overall HUS, as measured by EQ-5D-5L, VAS, TTO, and SG, was 0.88 ± 0.14, 0.79 ± 0.17, 0.89 ± 0.15, and 0.86 ± 0.16, respectively. The multivariable linear regression revealed that each increasing 22-item sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22) score predicted a reduction of 0.002 to 0.003 in HUS (all methods, p < 0.01). Patients who scheduled for endoscopic sinus surgery had 0.06 to 0.11 HUS lower than other groups in EQ-5D-5L and VAS (all p < 0.05). Higher endoscopy score, age, presence of comorbid airway diseases, and lower education correlated with lower HUS (p < 0.05). Given the HUS results and regression models, the EQ-5D-5L is likely the preferable choice.

CONCLUSION

The overall HUS of CRS was approximately 0.79-0.89. High SNOT-22 score and those who failed medications, presence of comorbid AR/asthma, increased age, high endoscopy score, and low education negatively impacted HUS. Our data suggest that EQ-5D-5L is a preferable method for measuring HUS in patients with CRS.

Treatments of Epistaxis in Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To analyze and compare the effects of epistaxis treatments for Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Of total of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCT), the data from 15 RCTs (697 patients, 7 treatments: timolol, propranolol, bevacizumab, doxycycline, tacrolimus, estriol/estradiol, and tranexamic acid) were pooled for the meta-analyses while the other 6 studies (treatments: electrosurgical plasma coagulation, KTP laser, postoperative packing, tamoxifen, sclerosing agent, and estriol) were reviewed qualitatively. When compared to placebo, propranolol offered the most improved epistaxis severity score, mean difference (MD), -1.68, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) [-2.80, -0.56] followed by timolol, MD -0.40, 95%CI [-0.79, -0.02]. Tranexamic acid significantly reduced the epistaxis frequency, MD -1.93, 95%CI [-3.58, -0.28]. Other treatments had indifferent effects to placebo. Qualitative analysis highlighted the benefits of tamoxifen and estriol. The adverse events of tranexamic acid, tacrolimus, propranolol, and estradiol were significantly reported. Propranolol, timolol, tranexamic acid, tamoxifen, and estriol were effective treatments which offered benefits to HHT patients in epistaxis management. Adverse events of tranexamic acid, tacrolimus, propranolol, and estradiol should be concerned.

Phase III study of Phlai capsules in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Preclinical studies demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects of Zingiber montanum (J.König) Link ex Dietr.(Phlai). However, its clinical effect on allergic rhinitis (AR) is not evident.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of Phlai for treating AR.

METHODS

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. Patients with AR were randomized into three groups and received Phlai 100 mg or Phlai 200 mg or placebo once a day for four weeks. The primary outcome was a change in the reflective total five symptom score (rT5SS). The secondary outcomes were the change in the instantaneous total five symptom score (iT5SS), the reflective individual symptom scores (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, itchy nose, itchy eyes), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life-36 Questionnaire (RCQ-36) score, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-two patients were enrolled. Compared with placebo, Phlai 100 mg improved rT5SS [adjusted mean difference (aMD) -0.62; 95%CI -1.22, -0.03; p = 0.039], rhinorrhea (aMD -0.19; 95%CI -0.37, 0.002; p = 0.048), itchy nose (aMD -0.24; 95%CI -0.43, -0.05; p = 0.011), and itchy eyes (aMD -0.19; 95%CI -0.36, -0.02; p = 0.033) at week 4. Nasal obstruction, sneezing, iT5SS, overall RCQ-36 score, PNIF did not reach statistical significance. Phlai 200 mg did not bring additional benefits compared to 100 mg. Adverse events were similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Phlai was safe. At four weeks, there were small improvements in rT5SS, together with the individual symptoms of rhinorrhea, itchy nose, and itchy eyes.

Benefits of nasal saline treatment in acute rhinosinusitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although nasal saline treatments are widely used in treating acute rhinosinusitis (ARS), the evidence in adult patients is inconclusive. Our objective was to assess the add-on benefits of saline treatment in adults with ARS.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed (updated May 9, 2021). Randomized, controlled trials studying the effects of nasal saline treatment in adults with ARS were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite symptoms score (CSS), disease-specific quality-of-life (DS-QoL) score, individual symptom score, endoscopy score, saccharin transit time, cure rate, days to resolution, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (718 patients) were included in our investigation. Nasal discharge was the only symptom improved (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to -0.05]. Saline as an add-on treatment brought no benefit to CSS and DS-QoL score at both time-points (3-10 days and at the end of the study). Other outcomes also showed no benefits with use of saline, including endoscopy score, saccharin transit time, cure rate, days to resolution, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses showed improvement in viral ARS patients for CSS (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.08) and DS-QoL score (mean difference, -15.90; 95% CI, -31.78 to -0.02), and also in patients using high-volume saline (SMD, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.06).

CONCLUSION

Nasal saline as an add-on treatment improved rhinorrhea. There was no improvement in CSS and DS-QoL, except among the subgroup of viral ARS patients using high-volume saline. There were no differences in adverse events between the saline and non-saline treatments.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray (INCS) is commonly used by patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have suboptimal symptom control. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of as-needed INCS for treating AR.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials studying the effects of as-needed INCS compared to regular INCS, as-needed antihistamine, or placebo were performed. Primary outcomes were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and disease-specific quality of life (DSQoL).

RESULTS

Eight studies (882 participants) met the criteria. Regular use of INCS showed greater improvements than as-needed INCS in TNSS, DSQoL, nasal peak inspiratory flow, sneezing, and nasal congestion scores with small effect sizes. There were no differences between regular and as-needed INCS usage for ocular symptoms, symptom-free days, nasal itching, and rhinorrhea scores. As-needed INCS was superior to as-needed antihistamine and placebo with medium effect sizes. There were no differences in risk of adverse events between the groups in all three comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of INCS improved total nasal symptoms score and DSQoL better than as-needed INCS. However, as-needed INCS improved TNSS better than as-needed antihistamine and placebo. The effects of as-needed INCS were closer to regular INCS usage than to placebo or as-needed AH usage.

Optimal Device and Regimen of Nasal Saline Treatment for Sinonasal Diseases: Systematic Review

Objective

This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021.

Review Methods

Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery.

Results

Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective.

Conclusion

Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for local allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is a phenotype of chronic rhinitis exhibiting a local Th2-driven inflammation without positive clinical markers of atopy. Immunomodulatory effects of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) induce allergen-specific tolerance. However, AIT is not well-recognized as a treatment for LAR.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic search on six electronic databases and registries was performed. Experimental and observational studies of AIT for LAR patients were retrieved. The primary outcomes were symptom score, medication score, combined symptom medication score, and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes were serum specific(s) IgG4, sIgE, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Four double-blind randomized controlled trials (156 patients) from two research units assessed the effects of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Compared with placebo, SCIT showed significant reductions in symptom score, medication score, combined symptom medication score, disease-specific quality of life, and an increase in serum sIgG4. There was no significant change in serum sIgE. Likewise, two observational studies (one using SCIT and one using sublingual immunotherapy) improved post-therapeutic symptom score. No studies assessed the effects after discontinuation of treatment. AIT was safe without serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

AIT has beneficial effects and safe for LAR. Its effects are restricted to studies with short-term follow-up. AIT may be considered in LAR patients.

Intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a new route of allergen-specific immunotherapy. Data confirming its effect is restricted to a small number of studies.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. The short-term (less than 24 weeks), medium-term (24-52 weeks), and long-term (more than 52 weeks) effects of ILIT in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) were assessed. The outcomes were combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), symptoms visual analog scale (VAS), disease-specific quality of life (QOL), specific IgG4 level, specific IgE level, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials and 2 cohorts (483 participants) were included. Compared with placebo, short term benefits of ILIT for seasonal ARC improved CSMS, improved VAS and increased specific IgG4 level but did not change QOL or specific IgE level. Medium-term effect improved VAS. Data on the long-term benefit of ILIT remain unavailable and require longer term follow-up studies. There were no clinical benefits of ILIT for perennial ARC. ILIT was safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

ILIT showed short-term benefits for seasonal ARC. The sustained effects of ILIT were inconclusive. It was well tolerated.

Effects of large volume, isotonic nasal saline irrigation for acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nasal saline irrigation (large volume, positive pressure isotonic saline) in addition to standard treatment in patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS).

METHODS

This parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital. The adult patients with ARS (age ≥18 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. The irrigation group received 0.9% saline irrigation twice daily, using a 250-ml squeeze bottle, in addition to standard treatment. The no-irrigation group received standard treatment only. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1 week, and 2 weeks. The quality of life, rhinologic subscore, symptom score, endoscopy score, and cure rate were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (30: irrigation, 31: no-irrigation) were enrolled. There were 17 males and 44 females. The mean age was 41.06 years. Although both groups showed improvements, the improvement of each outcome was not different between the groups. Subgroup analysis by ARS subtype showed benefits of irrigation in the common cold subgroup; the improvements that were greater than control included: rhinologic subscore, intergroup mean difference -4.15 [95% confidence interval (CI), -7.49, -0.80] at 1 week and -5.23 [95% CI, -9.69, -0.78] at 2 weeks; combined symptom score -5.35 [95% CI, -10.55, -0.14] at 1 week and -8.02 [95%CI, -14.36, -1.70] at 2 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The add-on isotonic nasal saline irrigation using a large volume, positive pressure device did not add benefits equally for all ARS patients. The benefits of irrigation on quality of life and nasal symptoms were only observed in the common cold patient subgroup.

Risk factors of orbital complications in outpatients presenting with severe rhinosinusitis: A case-control study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed associations of potential factors with orbital complications in acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) patients.

DESIGN

An unmatched case-control study.

SETTING

A tertiary referral hospital in Thailand.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive outpatients of any age with severe ARS (visual analog scale ≥ 7) with and without orbital complications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients were enrolled from January 2013 to December 2018. Forty-three ARS patients (55.8% female, median age 45.6, (range 2.0-93.0) years) were included, with 19 patients in the complicated group and 24 in the uncomplicated group. Patient characteristics (gender, age, diabetes, immune status), symptoms and signs, site of infection and type of pathogenic bacteria were recorded and assessed their associations with orbital complications by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The most common orbital complication was subperiosteal abscess (42.1%), followed by orbital cellulitis (15.8%) and cavernous sinus thrombosis (10.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated a positive association with orbital complications (pseudo R² 0.4) for ethmoid sinusitis (OR 31.1, 95% CI [2.3-430.6]) and a short duration of symptoms (OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.8-0.9]).

CONCLUSIONS

Orbital complications were associated with ethmoid sinusitis with a short duration of ARS symptoms.

Correlation between extent of sinus surgery, radiographic disease, and postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extent of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) required for optimal outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is undefined. We evaluated whether concordance between the extent of surgery and degree of radiographic disease influences postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

247 CRS patients who underwent ESS were retrospectively assigned a concordance score reflecting the similarity between the extent of surgery and degree of radiographic disease. 0 points were assigned when sinusotomy was performed on a diseased sinus, or no sinusotomy was performed on a nondiseased sinus; plus 1 for sinusotomy on a nondiseased sinus; and -1 for a diseased sinus left unopened. The total possible score ranged from minus 10 to plus 10. Patients were divided into 5 subgroups according to variance from complete concordance. SNOT-22 scores and revision rates were compared at 6 and 24 months.

RESULTS

All five subgroups had similar preoperative SNOT-22 scores and improved at 6 months postoperatively. At 6 months postoperatively, the most conservatively operated and most extensively operated subgroups each achieved equivalent improvements in SNOT-22 as the completely concordant subgroup. At 24 months, the most extensively operated subgroup had a 12.5-point smaller improvement in SNOT-22 scores compared to the completely concordant subgroup. Multivariate analysis showed no association between concordance score and revision rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom improvement and revision rates after ESS do not appear to correlate with the degree of concordance between extent of surgery and radiographic disease. More extensive surgery than indicated by CT confers neither greater symptomatic improvement nor long-term detriment.

Predicting bacteria causing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis by clinical features

Introduction

Clinicians rely on clinical presentations to select therapeutic agents for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are common in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Drug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae require different antibiotics.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the associations between clinical features of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and pathogenic bacteria.

Methods

Sixty-four patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Clinical features including nasal obstruction, discolored discharge, facial pain, smell disturbance, fever and laboratory findings of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were collected. The bacterial cultures of endoscopic middle meatal swabs were used as a reference.

Results

Serum C-reactive protein level elevation correlated with the bacterial species (p = 0.03), by which was increased in 80.0% of Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis and 57.1% of Streptococcus pneumoniae rhinosinusitis. The elevated C-reactive protein was the significant predictor for Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis with the Odds Ratio of 18.06 (95% CI 2.36–138.20). The sensitivity of serum C-reactive protein level elevation for diagnosing Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis was 0.80 (95% CI 0.49–0.94).

Conclusion

Elevation of serum C-reactive protein level was associated with and predicted acute bacterial rhinosinusitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae.

EPOS2012 has better specificity compared to IDSA2012 for diagnosing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a subtype of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). To prevent excessive antibiotic prescribing, clinical criteria for diagnosing ABRS are presented in two major international guidelines from European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2012) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA2012). This study aims to assess accuracy of these criteria.

METHODOLOGY

Patients with ARS were recruited. Clinical features were collected including discolored nasal discharge, facial pain, fever, double sickening, symptoms persisting longer than 10 days, and elevated serum C reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ERS). Using middle meatal bacterial culture as a reference, accuracy of EPOS2012 and IDSA2012 criteria were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients (age 43.2+/-14.5 years, 67% female) with ARS were recruited. Using the two criteria for diagnosing ABRS, EPOS2012 and IDSA2012 have sensitivity of 50% (95%CI: 38%-62%) versus 69% (95%CI: 57%-79%), specificity of 63% (95%CI: 43%-79%) versus 46% (95%CI: 28%-65%), and accuracy of 53% versus 63%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both EPOS2012 and IDSA2012 had modest accuracy. EPOS2012 had less sensitivity but a better specificity compared to IDSA2012. This suggests that IDSA2012 diagnostic criteria may contribute to inappropriate use of antibiotics due to poorer specificity.

Effects of double-dose intranasal corticosteroid for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

When a standard dose of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) fails to control symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), a double dose of INCS is optional. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of double-dose INCS.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of double-dose INCS vs standard-dose INCS for treating patients with AR were included. Data from the included studies were extracted and collected for meta-analyses. The outcomes were nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (4166 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There were 5 pediatric studies (1868 patients), 5 adult studies (1414 patients), and 2 studies with mixed populations (884 patients). The meta-analysis results in adult patients favored the effects of double-dose INCS on: total nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to -0.08; 4 studies; 568 patients) and total ocular symptom score (SMD -0.27; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03; 1 study; 259 patients). The meta-analysis results in pediatric patients did not show the difference between groups on total nasal symptom score (SMD -0.16; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.07; 3 studies; 801 patients). The meta-analysis of ocular symptom score in pediatric patients had insufficient data. There were no differences between groups on adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Double-dose INCS showed better improvement in nasal and ocular symptoms in adult patients with AR when compared to the standard dose. These beneficial effects were not seen in the pediatric population. Adverse events between groups were not different.

Effects of decongestant addition to intranasal corticosteroid for chronic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is the most efficacious medicine for treating chronic rhinitis. A decongestant and INCS combination (INCS-D) is considered for nasal congestion that is not improved by INCS. This study aimed to investigate the effects of INCS-D on chronic rhinitis.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Randomized controlled trials studying the effects of INCS-D vs INCS alone for treating chronic rhinitis were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were nasal symptoms, disease-specific quality of life, objective tests for nasal patency, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Six studies (1071 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between INCS-D and INCS on total nasal symptom scores (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.09 to 0.40; p = 0.18), nasal congestion scores (SMD -0.13; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.20; p = 0.43), and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.12; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.42; p = 0.66). After 1 week, there were no differences on objective tests for nasal patency (acoustic rhinometry: SMD 0.04; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.76, p = 0.91; and peak nasal inspiratory flow: SMD 0.08; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.32; p = 0.52). Adverse events were not different between INCS-D and INCS (risk ratio 1.09; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.62).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses did not show benefits of topical decongestants addition to INCS. Adverse events of INCS-D were comparable with INCS.

Endotypes of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Across Ancestry and Geographic Regions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preliminary studies have suggested differences in endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) across ancestry/ethnic groups. Eosinophilic CRS (ECRS) is the predominant subtype for Western/European ancestry CRS patients and non-eosinophilic CRS (nECRS) for Asian patients. This review aims to re-analyze CRS endotypes across ancestry populations using one consistent criteria to existing data.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although tissue eosinophilia is the most commonly used criterion for ECRS, various cut-off points are suggested. Surrogate markers have been extensively studied. Sixty-six cohorts with study criteria were included with a total of 8557 patients. Raw data from 11 studies 544 patients were re-analyzed using number of tissue eosinophils. At lower cut-off values of ≥ 5 and ≥ 10 cells/HPF, most patients of Asian and Western/European ancestry were classified as ECRS without difference. In contrast, at cut-off points of ≥ 70 and ≥ 120 cells/HPF, the majority of both groups became reclassified as nECRS. After applying one consistent criteria to existing data, differences across ancestry and geographic populations in endotypes of CRS were no longer evident.

Effects of H1 antihistamine addition to intranasal corticosteroid for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A combination of H1 antihistamine (AH) with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is commonly prescribed to patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have an inadequate response to monotherapy. In this systematic review we aimed to determine the effects of AH combined with INCS (AH-INCS) for treating AR.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using Medline and Embase. Randomized, controlled trials that studied the effects of AH-INCS vs INCS monotherapy for treating patients with AR were included. The primary outcomes were total nasal symptom scores, total ocular symptom scores, and disease-specific quality of life. The secondary outcomes were objective tests for nasal patency and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (4026 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with INCS, AH-INCS decreased total nasal symptom scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.19 to -0.06; p < 0.001; 10 trials, 3348 patients) and total ocular symptom scores (SMD, -0.12, 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.04; p = 0.003; 6 trials, 2378 patients). Subgroup analysis indicated no benefit with the oral AH-INCS combination but did show benefit with intranasal AH-INCS (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.09; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to disease-specific quality of life (SMD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.02; p = 0.12; 6 trials, 1981 patients), nasal inspiratory flow (MD, -0.03 L/min; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.50; p = 0.91; 1 trial, 54 patients), or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal AH-INCS has benefit over INCS on nasal and ocular symptom improvement for treating AR. Oral AH-INCS is not recommended.

Hypertonic Saline Versus Isotonic Saline Nasal Irrigation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background Saline nasal lavage is one of the treatments of sinonasal diseases. Evidence from basic research favors hypertonic saline (HS) over isotonic saline (IS) for mucociliary clearance, but evidence from clinical studies is controversial. Conversely, HS may carry greater side effects. Objective To compare the effects of HS and IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. Methods Systematic search with Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Manual additional sources was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing HS with IS nasal irrigation in treating any sinonasal diseases, including rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, were included. Data were pooled for meta-analyses. Outcomes were symptom scores, sinonasal outcome test (SNOT), and adverse events. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses. Results Nine studies (740 patients) were included. HS nasal irrigation brought greater benefits over IS in symptom reduction (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.76, -0.40); however, no difference was shown in SNOT-20 improvement (mean difference 1.81; 95% CI: -0.68, 4.30). In subgroup analyses, effects favoring HS on symptoms were larger in 4 subgroups. These were (1) patients with rhinitis (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) compared with rhinosinusitis (SMD -0.37; 95% CI: -0.58, -0.15), P < .01; (2) patients under the age of 18 years (SMD -1.22; 95% CI: -1.53, -0.91) compared with patients over the age of 18 years (SMD -0.26; 95% CI: -0.49, -0.04), P < .01; (3) saline irrigation using high volume (SMD -0.89; 95% CI: -1.18, -0.60) compared with low volume (SMD -0.39; 95% CI: -0.62, -0.16), P < .01; and (4) saline irrigation with hypertonicity of <3% (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) and hypertonicity of 3%-5% (SMD -1.20; 95% CI: -1.61, -0.78) compared with hypertonicity of >5% (SMD 0.20; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.55), P < .01. Buffered saline and operative status did not have impact. HS brought greater minor adverse effects. No major adverse effects were reported. Conclusion HS improves symptoms over IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. There is no difference in disease-specific quality of life. However, HS brings greater minor side effects than IS.

Nose blowing after endoscopic sinus surgery does not adversely affect outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Patients frequently are advised to abstain from nose blowing following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), despite a lack of evidence supporting this recommendation. This randomized study assessed whether nose blowing in the first postoperative week affects subjective and objective clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing ESS were randomized into an interventional arm in which patients blew their nose at least twice daily for the first 7 postoperative days, or a control arm in which patients refrained from nose blowing. All patients were allowed to blow their nose after 7 days. The frequency and degree of epistaxis was documented by daily diary and visual analog scale (VAS). At 1 and 4 weeks postoperatively, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) were collected, and endoscopies were recorded for blinded Lund-Kennedy scale scoring.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups in terms of frequency and duration of bleeding events, VAS epistaxis scores, SNOT-22 scores, and NOSE scores at every postoperative timepoint. Lund-Kennedy scores also were similar at the 1-week (P = 0.0762) and 4-week (P = 0.2340) postoperative visits, but the nose-blowing group had improved nasal discharge subscores at the first (P = 0.0075) and second (P = 0.0298) postoperative visits.

CONCLUSION

Nose blowing after ESS does not appear to measurably improve symptoms of nasal congestion or general sinonasal quality of life, nor does it seem to adversely affect the frequency or severity of postoperative epistaxis during the first postoperative week. Judicious nose blowing may be permissible immediately after uncomplicated ESS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b. Laryngoscope, 128:1268-1273, 2018.