RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is one of the most encountered conditions in primary care and otolaryngology clinics. However, little is known about how antibiotic prescription practices following a diagnosis of ARS compare to guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Otolaryngology in 2015. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the epidemiology of ARS and the corresponding antibiotic prescribing practices by physicians and compare to published guidelines. METHODS: Using the TriNetX Live database, we identified all patients diagnosed with ARS using the ICD10 code J01 between April 2015 and December 2022 across the state of Tennessee. After investigating the demographics of this cohort, we compared the first prescribed antibiotic within one day of ARS diagnosis to published guidelines. Antibiotics were grouped into their respective classes. RESULTS: Of 81 310 patients diagnosed with ARS identified in the specified time frame, 66% were Female, 49% were African American, 44% were White, and the mean age was 47 ± 20 years. The six most common initial antibiotics prescribed for ARS were erythromycins/macrolides [14 609 (25.8%)], amoxicillin/clavulanate [14 322 (25.3%)], amoxicillin [9300 (16.4%)], third generation cephalosporins [7733 (13.6%)], quinolones [3648 (6.4%)] and tetracyclines [2235 (3.9%)]. Of this cohort, 56 719 patients (69.8%) of patients were prescribed an antibiotic within one day of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Despite published guidelines recommending amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid as first-line treatment for ARS, only 42.2% of prescribed antibiotics followed this guideline in our cohort. While accounting for patients with penicillin allergy, the second-most represented antibiotics were erythromycins/macrolides, which are specifically recommended against due to high rates of S. Pneumoniae resistance. Our results suggest that further investigation into the causes of erythromycin/macrolide prescriptions as first line treatment for ARS and practices at other institutions should be conducted. In addition, building awareness around published ARS guidelines for physicians may be useful in improving antibiotic stewardship in treatment of ARS.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the peer-reviewed literature on the utility of mind-body therapy (MBT) as an adjunct treatment in the management of otolaryngologic disease. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCTs) of MBTs in the management of otolaryngologic disease from 2002 to 2022 were identified and included according to predefined criteria. Interventions requiring expensive equipment were excluded because the goal of MBT is to be cost-conscious. All studies were subjected to a two-stage blinded screening, extraction, and appraisal process. The outcomes of the intervention and control groups were compared. CONCLUSION: RCTs of MBTs, including breathing exercises (4), aromatherapy (2), biofeedback (2), meditation, (2), and yoga (2), have been studied in several otolaryngologic conditions, including septoplasty/rhinoplasty (3), head and neck cancer (2), facial palsy (2), and tinnitus (2). Most studies were of moderate risk of bias on appraisal, and each MBT studied was found to significantly reduce subjective and objective distress associated with the otolaryngologic condition in question. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite a paucity of strong evidence supporting the universal use of MBTs, our review suggests that MBTs are cost-effective and easily deployable complementary tools in the management of otolaryngologic disease. Future large, methodologically rigorous RCTs are needed to address the limitations of the included studies, such as improper blinding and inappropriate statistical analysis. As MBTs are studied further, a case for their current use can be made because of their low cost and minimal risk to patients.

Asunto(s)