RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyze and compare the effects of herbal medicines (HMs) for treating different forms of rhinosinusitis. RECENT FINDINGS: Forty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 18 HMs in six different rhinosinusitis populations were included in the network meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. For the common cold, Pelargonium sidoides offered the most beneficial effect on symptom improvement (moderate certainty of evidence). For acute post-viral rhinosinusitis, Cineole and Pelargonium sidoides were the most effective treatments for controlling symptoms (moderate certainty), while Spicae aetheroleum was most effective for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement (moderate certainty). For chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), Origanum vulgare was the most beneficial treatment for improving symptoms and HRQoL (low certainty). Evidence of HMs for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and unclassified chronic rhinosinusitis was restricted to a limited number of studies. Adverse events should be of concern in some HMs, such as Spicae aetheroleum or Mytorl. Several HMs improved patient-important outcomes, above minimal clinically important differences, in treating common cold, acute post-viral rhinosinusitis, and CRSsNP. Further studies with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are warranted to support the current evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022328265 May 10, 2022.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the effects of herbal medicine (HM) therapy in various durations and analyze the effects of HM separately by mechanism of action in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-two studies were included (2,697 patients, mean age 34.6 years). For the ≤ 4 weeks of treatment duration, HM brought greater benefits over placebo in reduction of total nasal symptoms score (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98, -0.38; p <0.01) and improvement in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.81, -0.25; p <0.01). For the 4-12 weeks duration, total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.22; 95%CI -0.4, -0.05; p =0.01) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.48; 95% CI -0.89, -0.06; p =0.03) favored the HM. However, HM therapy for longer than 12 weeks was related to tachyphylaxis and showed no benefit over placebo in any outcomes. There was no difference between the HM and standard treatment on symptoms improvement. Anti-allergic effect, anti-inflammatory effect, anti-leukotriene effect, and anti-histaminic effect of HM were revealed. HM was safe and their adverse effects were comparable placebo. HM therapy is safe and provides better results than placebo in improving nasal symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in patients with AR. Its beneficial effects are demonstrated only in less than 12 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020168367.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract 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.

Resumo: Introdução: Os médicos se baseiam nas características clínicas para a escolha dos agentes terapêuticos para o tratamento da rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Streptococcus pneumoniae e Haemophilus influenzae são agentes comuns na rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Streptococcus pneumoniae e Haemophilus influenzae resistentes a antibióticos requerem medicamentos diferentes. Objetivo: Avaliar as associações entre as características clínicas da rinossinusite bacteriana aguda e bactérias patogênicas. Método: O estudo incluiu 64 pacientes com rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Foram coletadas e registradas as características clínicas, inclusive obstrução nasal, secreção com cor alterada, dor facial, distúrbios do olfato, febre e achados laboratoriais de pacientes com rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. As culturas bacterianas obtidas por swab endoscópico do meato médio foram usadas como referência. Resultados: A elevação do nível sérico de proteína C-reativa estava correlacionada com a espécie bacteriana (p = 0,03); ela estava aumentada em 80,0% das rinossinusites por Haemophilus influenzae e em 57,1% das rinossinusites por Streptococcus pneumoniae. A proteína C-reativa elevada foi um significativo fator preditor de rinossinusite por Haemophilus influenzae, com razão de probabilidade de 18,06 (IC 95% 2,36-138,20). A sensibilidade da elevação dos níveis séricos de proteína C-reativa para o diagnóstico de rinossinusite por Haemophilus influenzae foi de 0,80 (IC 95% 0,49 ± 0,94). Conclusão: A elevação dos níveis séricos de proteína C-reativa é um preditor de rinossinusite bacteriana aguda causada por Haemophilus influenzae.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) is known as an effective treatment for posterior epistaxis. Anatomical variations of the intranasal branching may result in long operative time and possible inadequate cauterization. A modification of ESPAL by cauterization at the sphenopalatine foramen (SPF), has been performed by our group. Our study assessed the clinical benefit of endoscopic sphenopalatine foramen cauterization (ESFC) and compared it to ESPAL. METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted. Patients who received ESFC for posterior epistaxis from 2016 to 2018 at a tertiary hospital were recruited. Middle meatal antrostomy was done. After ethmoidal crest was identified and nipped, pterygopalatine fossa was entered through the SPF. Sphenopalatine artery (SPA) and its branches within the SPF were cauterized without identification of any SPA distal branches in the nasal cavity. Patients receiving conventional ESPAL by the same surgeon were recruited and compared as control. Patients were followed-up for 3 months. Success rate, operative time, and complication were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified. Recurrent epistaxis was absent in 90.0% and 100% of patients receiving ESPAL (9/10 patients) and ESFC (24/24 patients) respectively, p = 0.294. Median operative time was 115 and 60 min, respectively, p < 0.001. Ipsilateral hard palatal or anterior palatal numbness were found in one and three patients, respectively. All resolved spontaneously within 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: ESFC is effective in treating posterior epistaxis. It requires significantly less amount of time while the success rate was comparable to conventional ESPAL.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic factors that predict favorable outcomes of low-dose macrolides (LDMs) in treating chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials studying the effects of LDMs in treating CRS were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Primary outcome was Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT). Six prognostic factors: CRS subtypes, serum immunoglobulin (Ig)E level, membered lactone ring of macrolides, concurrent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), and dosage and duration of the LDMs were assessed by subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Ten studies (608 patients) met the inclusion criteria. LDMs and placebo were not different in SNOT improvement (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.69 to 0.24). Subgroup analyses showed that the effects favored LDMs in the patients with CRS without polyps (SMD = -0.64, 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.27) compared to CRS with polyps, and the patients receiving a half dose (SMD = -0.64, 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.27) compared to a very low dose. There was no difference in SNOT improvement between LDMs plus standard treatment compared to standard treatment (SMD = -0.52, 95% CI: -1.57 to 0.53). Subgroup analyses showed that the effects favored LDMs in the patients receiving LDMs for a duration of 24 weeks (SMD = -1.68, 95% CI: -2.40 to -0.95) compared to 8 and 12 weeks. There was no difference between the 14-membered and 15-membered ring LDMs. Assessment of concurrent ESS found mixed results. Serum IgE level could not be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: LDMs provided favorable outcomes in patients with CRS without polyps. A half dose of macrolides should be given for a duration of 24 weeks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1a Laryngoscope, 129:1510-1519, 2019.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)