The effect of treatment with moxifloxacin or azithromycin on acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in mice

SummaryObjectiveAcute bacterial rhinosinusitis, which is a major health problem, is treated with antibiotics. We developed a mouse model of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis to gain a better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease. Our goal was to investigate the response to acute rhinosinusitis when treated with either a bactericidal or a bacteriostatic antibiotic.MethodsC57BL/6 mice were infected intranasally with Streptococcus pneumoniae. One day after inoculation, the mice were treated with either moxifloxacin (bactericidal) or azithromycin (bacteriostatic). Different groups were euthanized during the first five days post-inoculation. Bacterial counts from nasal lavage culture and the cell markers GR1, CD11b, CD3, CD4, and CD8 in sinus tissue were evaluated by flow cytometry.ResultsAzithromycin led to rapid clearance of the bacteria and of the inflammation in contrast to placebo. Surprisingly, moxifloxacin showed a limited effect. Investigations of this limited effect of moxifloxacin suggested a high metabolic clearance, a low concentration at the site of infection, and low persistent post-antibiotic effects of moxifloxacin in mice.ConclusionOur animal model of acute sinusitis has great utility for studying the disease, but the difference between mice and man must always be considered in making extrapolations from animal experiments to the human experience

Effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices: a Thai multicentre survey

Background Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for nasal diseases. There is little evidence regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this survey was to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients and physicians. Methods We conducted a multicentre survey study between November 2017 and October 2018. Physician and patient questionnaires were developed based on the available literature and expert opinion. The physician questionnaire was submitted to the Otolaryngology residents and staff of each centre and their network. The physicians were also asked to distribute the patient questionnaire to their patients. Results Information regarding 331 devices used by the patients was collected. The mean age of the patients was 45.46 ± 17.19 years (from 5 to 81). Roughly half were male, and half were female (48.6%: 51.4%). Among the high-pressure devices, we found that the high-pressure large-volume nasal irrigation devices yielded significantly higher symptom scores in seven of 12 domains (p < 0.05). Among the large-volume devices, we found that the large-volume high-pressure nasal irrigation devices received significantly higher symptom scores in 4 of 12 domains (p < 0.05). However, a higher proportion of patients using the large-volume high-pressure devices had retained fluid in the sinuses compared to those using large-volume low-pressure devices (p < 0.001). Conclusions This survey supports the regular use of nasal irrigation, particularly with large-volume high-pressure devices, as an effective treatment for nasal disease. It may be effective at clearing nasal secretion, improve nasal congestion, decrease post-nasal drip, improve sinus pain or headache, improve taste and smell, and improve sleep quality. It could be used by patients with good compliance and minimal side effects

Short-course oral steroids alone for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND: This review is one of a suite of six Cochrane reviews looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition involving inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses. It is characterised by nasal blockage and nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Oral corticosteroids are used to control the inflammatory response and improve symptoms.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral corticosteroids compared with placebo/no intervention or other pharmacological interventions (intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics, antifungals) for chronic rhinosinusitis.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course (up to 21 days) of oral corticosteroids with placebo or no treatment or compared with other pharmacological interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity, and the adverse event of mood or behavioural disturbances. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances and osteoporosis. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (474 randomised participants), which compared oral corticosteroids with placebo or no intervention. All trials only recruited adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. All trials reported outcomes at two to three weeks, at the end of the short-course oral steroid treatment period. Three trials additionally reported outcomes at three to six months. Two of these studies prescribed intranasal steroids to patients in both arms of the trial at the end of the oral steroid treatment period. Oral steroids versus placebo or no intervention Disease-specific health-related quality of life was reported by one study. This study reported improved quality of life after treatment (two to three weeks) in the group receiving oral steroids compared with the group who received placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.92 to -0.56, 40 participants, modified RSOM-31), which corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be low quality (we are uncertain about the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect). Disease severity as measured by patient-reported symptom scores was reported by two studies, which allowed the four key symptoms used to define chronic rhinosinusitis (nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure, hyposmia) to be combined into one score. The results at the end of treatment (two to three weeks) showed an improvement in patients receiving oral steroids compared to placebo, both when presented as a mean final value (SMD -2.84, 95% CI -4.09 to -1.59, 22 participants) and as a change from baseline (SMD -2.28, 95% CI -2.76 to -1.80, 114 participants). These correspond to large effect sizes but we assessed the evidence to be low quality.One study (114 participants) followed patients for 10 weeks after the two-week treatment period. All patients in both arms received intranasal steroids at the end of the oral steroid treatment period. The results showed that the initial results after treatment were not sustained (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.15, 114 participants, percentage improvement from baseline). This corresponds to a small effect size and we assessed the evidence to be low quality.There was an increase in adverse events in people receiving orals steroids compared with placebo for gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 3.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 10.78; 187 participants; three studies) and insomnia (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.10 to 11.95; 187 participants; three studies). There was no significant impact of oral steroids on mood disturbances at the dosage used in the included study (risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 95% CI 0.55 to 11.41; 40 participants; one study). We assessed the evidence to be low quality due to the lack of definitions of the adverse events and the small number of events or sample size, or both). Other comparisonsNo studies that compared short-course oral steroids with other treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the end of the treatment course (two to three weeks) there is an improvement in health-related quality of life and symptom severity in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps taking oral corticosteroids compared with placebo or no treatment. The quality of the evidence supporting this finding is low. At three to six months after the end of the oral steroid treatment period, there is little or no improvement in health-related quality of life or symptom severity for patients taking an initial course of oral steroids compared with placebo or no treatment.The data on the adverse effects associated with short courses of oral corticosteroids indicate that there may be an increase in insomnia and gastrointestinal disturbances but it is not clear whether there is an increase in mood disturbances. All of the adverse events results are based on low quality evidence.More research in this area, particularly research evaluating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.There is no evidence for oral steroids compared with other treatments

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual careOne trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroidsOne trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment

Allergic diseases in the elderly

Demographic distribution of the population is progressively changing with the proportion of elderly persons increasing in most societies. This entails that there is a need to evaluate the impact of common diseases, such as asthma and other allergic conditions, in this age segment. Frailty, comorbidities and polymedication are some of the factors that condition management in geriatric patients. The objective of this review is to highlight the characteristics of allergic diseases in older age groups, from the influence of immunosenescence, to particular clinical implications and management issues, such as drug interactions or age-related side effects

Rhinitis in the geriatric population

The current geriatric population in the United States accounts for approximately 12% of the total population and is projected to reach nearly 20% (71.5 million people) by 2030[1]. With this expansion of the number of older adults, physicians will face the common complaint of rhinitis with increasing frequency. Nasal symptoms pose a significant burden on the health of older people and require attention to improve quality of life. Several mechanisms likely underlie the pathogenesis of rhinitis in these patients, including inflammatory conditions and the influence of aging on nasal physiology, with the potential for interaction between the two. Various treatments have been proposed to manage this condition; however, more work is needed to enhance our understanding of the pathophysiology of the various forms of geriatric rhinitis and to develop more effective therapies for this important patient population

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

A multicenter survey on the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices in rhinosinusitis patients

Background: Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for rhinosinusitis. However, there is little information available regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this study was thus to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients with rhinosinusitis. Methods: We conducted a multicenter survey study between November 2017 and December 2019. The questionnaire was developed based on the available literature and expert opinion and submitted to the otolaryngology residents and staff of each center as well as those in their networks. Results: Four hundred eighteen patients were enrolled in this study: 76 with acute viral rhinosinusitis (18%), 53 with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (13%), 156 with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (37%), and 133 with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (32%). We found that high-volume devices were most effective in helping to clear secretion in patients with acute viral rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .017, .009, .002, respectively) and in reducing post-nasal drip in those with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .040). There were no statistically significant differences among devices in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Conclusions: Nasal irrigation with high-volume devices was an effective treatment for rhinosinusitis and was more effective at clearing nasal secretion and reducing post-nasal drip than that with other types of devices. Level of Evidence: 2C