The Orbital floor is a surgical landmark for the Asian anterior skull base

Background: Surgical landmarks for defining the level of the skull base during endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery (ESBS), e.g., the middle turbinate, may be distorted by tumor or previous surgery. The orbital floor is a valid fixed anatomic landmark for the white population, but it is not known if its use is useful for an Asian population. Objectives: To define fixed anatomic landmarks for ESBS in an Asian population and to compare the level of the skull base and its relation with anatomic landmarks between Asian and white populations. Methods: Computed tomographies performed on paranasal sinuses of Thai patients were retrospectively assessed. The distance between the nasal floor to four structures, the orbital floor, sphenoid planum, cribriform, and ethmoid roof, were measured. The level of skull base related to the orbital floor of an Asian population was compared with data of a white population from a previously published study. Results: A total of 150 Thai patients (300 paranasal sinus systems) were assessed and compared with 150 white patients. The orbital floor was always below the skull base (600 sides [100%]). When compared with white patients, the Asian patients had significantly higher mean (standard deviation [SD]) values: orbital floor (35.2 ± 3.4 mm versus 33.9 ± 3.0 mm; p < 0.001), ethmoid roof (49.3 ± 3.8 mm versus 48.4 ± 4.5 mm; p = 0.01), cribriform (46.4 ± 3.6 mm versus 44.0 ± 3.7 mm; p < 0.001), and sphenoid roof (45.7 ± 3.7 mm versus 44.9 ± 3.7 mm; p = 0.01). The Asian population had a mean (SD) longer distance from the orbital floor to the cribiform (11.2 ± 2.5 mm versus 10.1 ± 2.7 mm; p < 0.001), a shorter distance to the sphenoid roof (10.5 ± 3.3 mm versus 11.0 ± 2.9 mm; p = 0.03), and a similar distance to the ethmoid roof (14.1 ± 3.1 mm versus 14.5 ± 3.5 mm; p = 0.09). Conclusion: Although a statistical difference exists between racial groups, clinically, the orbital floor is a useful fixed anatomic landmark for ESBS for both Asian and white populations.4 page(s

Intranasal corticosteroids for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Non-allergic rhinitis is defined as dysfunction and non-infectious inflammation of the nasal mucosa that is caused by provoking agents other than allergens or microbes. It is common, with an estimated prevalence of around 10% to 20%. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, anterior rhinorrhoea/post-nasal drip and sneezing. Several subgroups of non-allergic rhinitis can be distinguished, depending on the trigger responsible for symptoms; these include occupation, cigarette smoke, hormones, medication, food and age. On a cellular molecular level different disease mechanisms can also be identified. People with non-allergic rhinitis often lack an effective treatment as a result of poor understanding and lack of recognition of the underlying disease mechanism. Intranasal corticosteroids are one of the most common types of medication prescribed in patients with rhinitis or rhinosinusitis symptoms, including those with non-allergic rhinitis. However, it is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids are truly effective in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of non-allergic rhinitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 7); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intranasal corticosteroids, delivered by any means and in any volume, with (a) placebo/no intervention or (b) other active treatments in adults and children (aged ≥ 12 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a significant adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were (disease-specific) health-related quality of life, objective measurements of airflow and other adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies (4452 participants); however, only 13 studies provided data for our main comparison, intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo. The participants were mainly defined as patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms and negative allergy tests. No distinction between different pheno- and endotypes could be made, although a few studies only included a specific phenotype such as pregnancy rhinitis, vasomotor rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa or senile rhinitis. Most studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary healthcare setting. No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Intranasal corticosteroid dosage in the review ranged from 50 µg to 2000 µg daily. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo Thirteen studies (2045 participants) provided data for this comparison. These studies used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data in each analysis using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.15 to -0.33; 4 studies; 131 participants; I2 = 22%) (low-certainty evidence). However, between four weeks and three months the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.20; 3 studies; 85 participants; I2 = 0%) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may slightly improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score change from baseline when compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 4 studies; 1465 participants; I2 = 35%) (low-certainty evidence). All four studies evaluating the risk of epistaxis showed that there is probably a higher risk in the intranasal corticosteroids group (65 per 1000) compared to placebo (31 per 1000) (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.57; 4 studies; 1174 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute risk difference (RD) was 0.04 with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 25 (95% CI 16.7 to 100). Only one study reported numerical data for quality of life. It did report a higher quality of life score in the intranasal corticosteroids group (152.3 versus 145.6; SF-12v2 range 0 to 800); however, this disappeared at longer-term follow-up (148.4 versus 145.6) (low-certainty evidence). Only two studies provided data for the outcome objective measurements of airflow. These data could not be pooled because they used different methods of outcome measurement. Neither found a significant difference between the intranasal corticosteroids and placebo group (rhinomanometry SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.14; 44 participants; peak expiratory flow rate SMD 0.78, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.03; 11 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids probably resulted in little or no difference in the risk of other adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3 studies; 1130 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids versus other treatments Only one or a few studies assessed each of the other comparisons (intranasal corticosteroids versus saline irrigation, intranasal antihistamine, capsaicin, cromoglycate sodium, ipratropium bromide, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroids with saline compared to saline alone). It is therefore uncertain whether there are differences between intranasal corticosteroids and other active treatments for any of the outcomes reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the certainty of the evidence for most outcomes in this review was low or very low. It is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids reduce patient-reported disease severity in non-allergic rhinitis patients compared with placebo when measured at up to three months. However, intranasal corticosteroids probably have a higher risk of the adverse effect epistaxis. There are very few studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids to other treatment modalities making it difficult to draw conclusions

Economic Burden of the Inadequate Management of Allergic Rhinitis and Urticaria in Asian Countries Based on the GA2LEN Model

Purpose: Across Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, (referred to as Asia) approximately 30-53 million individuals of the 151 million employed suffer from allergic rhinitis (AR) and urticaria. It is estimated that approximately 90% of patients with these allergic conditions are insufficiently treated, impacting the socioeconomic burden in terms of absence from work and decreased productivity. This study aims to estimate the socioeconomic burden of allergies in Asia and the cost savings that their adequate management can provide. Due to the limited availability of regional data, this study focused AR and urticaria in selected countries. Methods: Published literature, information from statistical bureaus, clinician surveys and extrapolation of selected data from the European Union were used to determine the socioeconomic costs of AR and urticaria. Results: Many patients in Asia suffer from perennial allergies and experience symptoms of AR and urticaria for up to 298 days per year. An estimate of the indirect costs of patients insufficiently treated for AR and urticaria amounts to USD 105.4 billion a year, which equates to USD 1,137-2,195 per patient due to absenteeism and presenteeism. Adherence to guideline-approved treatment can lead to estimated savings of up to USD 104 billion. Conclusions: The current study suggests that within Asia, the socioeconomic impact of AR and urticaria is similar to that seen in the European Union in spite of the lower wages in Asia. This is due to the mainly perennial allergens prevailing in Asia, whereas the sensitization patterns observed in the European Union are dominated by seasonal exposure to pollen. These results underline the need for governmental initiatives to increase public awareness on the prevention and treatment of these and other allergic diseases as well as greater research funding and large-scale studies to reduce their growing socioeconomic burden in coming years