-
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Nov 2021RARS is a challenging clinical problem that impacts many patients. This article seeks to systematically review the literature on RARS management.
BACKGROUND OBJECTIVE STUDY DESIGN
RARS is a challenging clinical problem that impacts many patients. This article seeks to systematically review the literature on RARS management.
METHODS
Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and other databases were queried for articles related to RARS dating from 1990 to present, according to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria included articles specifically addressing RARS management; studies with 3 or more patients; and articles in English.
RESULTS
A total of 1022 titles/abstracts potentially related to RARS were identified. Of these, sixty-nine full texts were selected for review, and 10 met inclusion criteria (five with level 4 evidence, four with level 3 evidence, one with level 2 evidence). The studies included a total of 890 patients (Age range 5.8 to 53.5 years), with follow up ranging from 1 to 19 months. Endpoints were primarily based on symptomatic improvement, although some articles also reported post-treatment endoscopic and radiographic findings. Management options included medical therapy (intranasal steroids, antibiotics, nasal saline irrigations, N-acetylcysteine, allergy treatment, and decongestants), balloon sinus dilation (BSD), and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Surgical patients (BSD and ESS) had a trend towards greater symptom control than medically-treated patients, but meta-analysis was not possible.
CONCLUSION
Despite increasing interest in the treatment of RARS, there remains a lack of consensus regarding optimal management. The literature thus far, largely based on expert opinion, suggests that surgical management, either through balloon sinus dilation or endoscopic sinus surgery, may be helpful in improving symptoms and quality of life in those who do not respond to initial trials of medical management.
Topics: Acute Disease; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Paranasal Sinuses; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 33622038
DOI: 10.1177/1945892421994999 -
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck... Aug 2020Acute exacerbations (AE) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have been increasingly recognized as an important clinical issue. The purpose of this study is to summarize the...
BACKGROUND
Acute exacerbations (AE) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have been increasingly recognized as an important clinical issue. The purpose of this study is to summarize the current definitions and evaluation parameters of AE and then identify and quantify the clinical and immunopathologic characteristics of AE in CRS.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from January 1990 through August 2020 to identify studies relating to AE in CRS. Exclusion criteria included non-English and non-human studies, and case reports.
RESULTS
The definitions of AE in CRS among all the studies were based on a description of short-term worsening sinonasal symptoms. Patient-reported sinus infection and exacerbation related medical treatment during the preceding 3 months to 1 year were used to evaluate the frequency of AE in CRS. The average decline in 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) score during an exacerbation was 7.83 points relative to baseline. Comorbid asthma, SNOT-22 scores ≥24, allergic rhinitis, eosinophil count ≥150/μL and autoimmune disease were positively associated with an exacerbation-prone CRS phenotype. AE in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) was associated with increased expression of mucus cytokines including myeloperoxidase (percentage increase [PI] = 101%), IL-5 (PI = 125%), and IL-6 (PI = 162%) and could be predicted by the increasing mucus cystatin and periostin.
CONCLUSION
The definition of AE in CRS is largely driven by patient-reported symptoms and is associated with several risk factors. Quantitative changes in mucus cytokines associated with AE in CRSwNP and may be used to predict events. The development of a consistent definition of AE in CRS is critical to help define disease control and treatment efficacy.
Topics: Asthma; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Rhinitis; Risk Factors; Sino-Nasal Outcome Test; Sinusitis; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 32811568
DOI: 10.1186/s40463-020-00459-w -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Mar 2017A foreign body (FB) penetrating intracranially after passing transorbitally or transnasally is a rare occurrence. However, otolaryngologists are increasingly being asked... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A foreign body (FB) penetrating intracranially after passing transorbitally or transnasally is a rare occurrence. However, otolaryngologists are increasingly being asked to participate in the care of these patients for both endoscopic removal of the object and repair of any skull base defects.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the presentation, workup, and management of transnasal or transorbital penetrating FB injury.
METHODS
Systematic review of the presentation, workup, and management of transnasal or transorbital penetrating FB injury; plus, a case report of a 53-year-old woman with a transorbital penetrating rose bush branch. We searched medical literature data bases, which resulted in 215 total titles, which were then narrowed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Thirty-five cases of transorbital or transnasal low-velocity trauma that involved the paranasal sinuses were reviewed from 33 articles. The average age was 30 years, 40% of the objects were made of wood. Fifty-seven percent of the cases were transorbital, whereas 43% were transnasal. Forty-six percent of the surgical interventions were completed endoscopically or with endoscopic assistance. Complications of injury were common, with 66% of patients experiencing cerebrospinal fluid leaks; 23%, permanent blindness; 17%, meningitis; 14%, ophthalmoplegia; 9%, decreased visual acuity; and 3%, brain abscess. Our patient presented with a traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leak, and recovered well after transorbital and endoscopic removal of the branch, skull base repair, and a prolonged course of antibiotics and antifungal medications.
CONCLUSIONS
Transnasal and transorbital penetrating FB injuries are a relatively uncommon occurrence but when they do occur require rapid workup and interdisciplinary management to prevent acute and delayed complications.
Topics: Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak; Craniocerebral Trauma; Endoscopy; Eye Injuries; Female; Foreign Bodies; Head Injuries, Penetrating; Humans; Middle Aged; Orbit; Paranasal Sinuses; Postoperative Complications; Skull Base; United States
PubMed: 28452700
DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2017.31.4421 -
Rhinology Mar 2015Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is one of the most common diagnoses for which an antibiotic is prescribed. Although the usage of antibiotics in the treatment of mild,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is one of the most common diagnoses for which an antibiotic is prescribed. Although the usage of antibiotics in the treatment of mild, moderate or uncomplicated ARS is not recommended by most international guidelines, overuse of antibiotics is still an alarming problem among patients and healthcare practitioners. We thus sought to review the evidence available through a systematic review of the existing literature on antibiotic usage in ARS.
METHODOLOGY
A search of the PubMed database was conducted for studies on antibiotic and placebo usage in the treatment of ARS.
RESULTS
A total of 31 random control trials (RCT) reporting the clinical efficacy of treating ARS and side effects of using cefuroxime axetil, telithromycin, amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin and clarithromycin were included in the review. Among them, 9 studies were performed double-blinded with placebo controls. The results showed that while antibiotics are more efficacious than placebos in the treatment of ARS, the risks of potential side effects need to be weighed against the potential benefit that antibiotics give to the patient. This is especially pertinent as usage of the placebo has shown to be almost as efficacious as using the antibiotic therapy, and also much safer.
CONCLUSION
The usage of antibiotics in ARS is widespread and there seems to be only slight added benefit in the usage of antibiotics over placebo in the treatment of ARS. Hence, larger scale studies should be done in the future to confirm the results of these studies.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 25756071
DOI: 10.4193/Rhino13.225 -
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews Nov 2020Acute upper respiratory tract infections are the most common infections in infants and children. Saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is widely prescribed and recommended. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Acute upper respiratory tract infections are the most common infections in infants and children. Saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is widely prescribed and recommended. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of SNI in infants and children with acute rhinopharyngitis.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Medline, Embase and clinicalTrials.gov. Two authors selected randomized control trials (RCTs), including infants ≥3 months and children ≤12 years, comparing the use of isotonic saline solutions, whatever their mode of administration, with one therapeutic abstention, or a therapy deemed less important for nasal lavage. Trial quality was assessed independently by two authors, who, with a third author, extracted and analysed data. Statistical analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The standard difference in means (SMD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval were estimated.
RESULTS
Four RCTs (569 participants) were included. The analysis showed a benefit of SNI for certain clinical rhinological symptoms (SMD = -0.29 [-0.45; -0.13]) but no significant improvement of respiratory symptoms (SMD = -0.19 [-0.70; 1.08]) or health status (SMD = -0.30 [-0.68; 0.07]). Its use appeared to limit the prescription of other treatments, whether local or systemic, and particularly antibiotics. Long-term use led to a decrease in the incidence of acute rhinosinusitis and its complications. SNI appeared to be a safe treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
SNI is beneficial for rhinological symptoms but not respiratory symptoms. Further research is needed to address the full benefits/risks of this treatment.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Nasal Lavage; Pharyngitis; Respiratory Tract Infections; Rhinitis; Saline Solution; Sinusitis
PubMed: 32312677
DOI: 10.1016/j.prrv.2019.11.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (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 - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention.The varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo Three studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants).One study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups.One study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids One study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for "desperately worse" to 2 for "cured") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later. Systemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroids One study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroids One study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found.Despite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported.No RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria.More research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Chronic Disease; Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Nasal Sprays; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Time Factors
PubMed: 27113482
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011994.pub2 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Feb 2021Immunodeficiency is a risk factor for recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Currently, there is no consensus on effective treatment modalities for immunodeficient...
BACKGROUND
Immunodeficiency is a risk factor for recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Currently, there is no consensus on effective treatment modalities for immunodeficient CRS patients. This review aims to evaluate the existing evidence on the treatment outcomes and its limitations in patients with CRS and immunodeficiency.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to April 2019 for studies reporting measurable medical or surgical treatment outcomes for adult patients with CRS and underlying primary or secondary immunodeficiency.
RESULTS
Of the 2459 articles screened, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria: 2 prospective double-blind placebo-controlled trials, 2 prospective case-control studies, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 7 case series. The high degree of study heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. Antibiotic monotherapy was not linked with significant improvement in clinical, radiographic, or endoscopic outcomes. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy may potentially reduce the frequency of acute or chronic sinusitis in patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID) but may not improve their sinonasal symptoms. Outcomes from endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) were reported in 8 studies, which found that surgery was linked with improvement in symptoms, disease-specific quality of life, endoscopy scores, and radiographic scores. The average reported ESS revision rate was 14%.
CONCLUSION
Patients with CRS and immunodeficiency likely benefit from ESS based on the available evidence. Data supporting medical therapy in this targeted population is limited overall, but there may be a potential role for immunoglobulin therapy in patients with PID and CRS.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Disease; Endoscopy; Humans; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32668102
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22647 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is... (Review)
Review
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. Topical (intranasal) corticosteroids are used with the aim of reducing inflammation in the sinonasal mucosa in order to improve patient symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different types of intranasal steroids in people with 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) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing first-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) with second-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, betamethasone sodium phosphate), or sprays versus drops, or low-dose versus high-dose intranasal corticosteroids.
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 (nosebleed). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse event of local irritation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (911 participants), including four different comparisons. None of the studies evaluated our first primary outcome measure, disease-specific HRQL. Fluticasone propionate versus beclomethasone dipropionate We identified two small studies (56 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity and looked at the primary adverse effect: epistaxis , but no other outcomes. We cannot report any numerical data but the study authors reported no difference between the two steroids. The evidence was of very low quality. Fluticasone propionate versus mometasone furoate We identified only one study (100 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity (nasal symptoms scores), which reported no difference (no numerical data available). The evidence was of very low quality. High-dose versus low-dose steroidsWe included five studies (663 participants with nasal polyps), three using mometasone furoate (400 µg versus 200 µg in adults and older children, 200 µg versus 100 µg in younger children) and two using fluticasone propionate drops (800 µg versus 400 µg). We found low quality evidence relating to disease severity and nasal polyps size, with results from the high-dose and low-dose groups being similar. Although all studies reported more improvement in polyp score in the high-dose group, the significance of this is unclear due to the small size of the improvements.The primary adverse effect, epistaxis , was more common when higher doses were used (risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54, 637 participants, moderate quality evidence). Most of the studies that contributed data to this outcome used a broad definition of epistaxis, which ranged from frank bleeding to bloody nasal discharge to flecks of blood in the mucus. Aqueous nasal spray versus aerosol spray We identified only one poorly reported study (unclear number of participants for comparison of interest, 91 between three treatment arms), in which there were significant baseline differences between the participants in the two groups. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to suggest that one type of intranasal steroid is more effective than another in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, nor that the effectiveness of a spray differs from an aerosol. We identified no studies that compared drops with spray.It is unclear if higher doses result in better symptom improvements (low quality evidence), but there was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of epistaxis as an adverse effect of treatment when higher doses were used. This included all levels of severity of epistaxis and it is likely that the proportion of events that required patients to discontinue usage is low due to the low numbers of withdrawals attributed to it. If epistaxis is limited to streaks of blood in the mucus it may be tolerated by the patient and it may be safe to continue treatment. However, it may be a factor that affects compliance.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the different types of corticosteroid molecule or spray versus aerosol have different effects. Lower doses have similar effectiveness but fewer side effects.Clearly more research in this area is needed, with specific attention given to trial design, disease-specific health-related quality of life outcomes and evaluation of longer-term outcomes and adverse effects.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Beclomethasone; Child; Chronic Disease; Fluticasone; Humans; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Polyps; Nasal Sprays; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Steroids
PubMed: 27115215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011993.pub2 -
International Journal of Pediatric... Aug 2020Assess characteristics and outcomes of orbital complications of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) in the pediatric population and evaluate trends over time. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Assess characteristics and outcomes of orbital complications of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) in the pediatric population and evaluate trends over time.
METHODS
A literature search of pediatric orbital complications was performed in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies reporting data for at least 10 subjects with orbital complications of sinusitis under 18 years old were included. Studies were grouped by publication year; before 2010 and after and including 2010. Studies that only included patients with subperiosteal abscess (SPA) were grouped in a separate category. Data collected include demographics, Chandler class complications, intra-operative culture, treatment, and outcomes. Meta-analysis of proportion was performed to compare data from studies published before 2010 and data published in 2010 and after.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed over time in gender of subjects in the all Chandler complications or SPA only groups (P > 0.72). The proportion of subjects presenting with Chandler IV complications decreased from 6.8% to 2.9% in recent studies (P = 0.019). The proportion of subjects treated surgically decreased from 45.2% to 21.7% in the all Chandler complications group (P < 0.0001) and from 90.0% to 47.9% in the SPA only group, P < 0.0001. The proportion of S. pneumoniae positive cultures decreased from 20.5% to 9.1% (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSION
The demographics of pediatric patients treated for orbital complications of ABRS in published literature has been stable. Patients reported in more recently published studies are less likely to present with orbital abscess and more likely to receive conservative treatment. The proportion of positive Streptococcus pneumoniae cultures have decreased.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Bacterial Infections; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Orbital Diseases; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32408012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110078 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Pouchitis occurs in approximately 50% of patients following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for chronic ulcerative colitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pouchitis occurs in approximately 50% of patients following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for chronic ulcerative colitis.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of medical therapies (including antibiotics, probiotics, and other agents) for prevention or treatment of acute or chronic pouchitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of prevention or treatment of acute or chronic pouchitis in adults who underwent IPAA for ulcerative colitis were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement or remission of pouchitis in patients with acute or chronic pouchitis, or the proportion of patients with no episodes of pouchitis after IPAA. The proportion of patients who developed at least one adverse event was a secondary outcome. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each dichotomous outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies (517 participants) were included in the review. Four studies assessed treatment of acute pouchitis. One study (16 participants) compared ciprofloxacin and metronidazole; another (26 participants) compared metronidazole to budesonide enemas; another (18 participants) compared rifaximin to placebo; and the fourth study (20 participants) compared Lactobacillus GG to placebo. Four studies assessed treatment of chronic pouchitis. One study (19 participants) compared glutamine to butyrate suppositories; another (40 participants) compared bismuth enemas to placebo; and two studies (76 participants) compared VSL#3 to placebo. Five studies assessed prevention of pouchitis. One study (40 participants) compared VSL#3 to placebo; another (28 participants) compared VLS#3 to no treatment; one study (184 participants) compared allopurinol to placebo; another (12 participants) compared the probiotic Bifidobacterium longum to placebo; and one study (38 participants) compared tinidazole to placebo. Three studies were judged to be of high quality. Two studies were judged to be low quality and the quality of the other studies was unclear. Treatment of acute pouchitis: The results of one small study (16 participants) suggest that ciprofloxacin may be more effective than metronidazole for the treatment of acute pouchitis. One hundred per cent (7/7) of ciprofloxacin patients achieved remission at two weeks compared to 33% (3/9) of metronidazole patients. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to high risk of bias (no blinding) and very sparse data (10 events). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who had at least one adverse event (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.98). Adverse events included vomiting, dysgeusia or transient peripheral neuropathy. There were no differences between metronidazole and budesonide enemas in terms of clinical remission, clinical improvement or adverse events. Adverse events included anorexia, nausea, headache, asthenia, metallic taste, vomiting, paraesthesia, and depression. There were no differences between rifaximin and placebo in terms of clinical remission, clinical improvement, or adverse events. Adverse events included diarrhea, flatulence, nausea, proctalgia, vomiting, thirst, candida, upper respiratory tract infection, increased hepatic enzyme, and cluster headache. There was no difference in clinical improvement between Lactobacillus GG and placebo. The results of these studies are uncertain due to very low quality evidence. Treatment of chronic pouchitis: A pooled analysis of two studies (76 participants) suggests that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission. Eighty-five per cent (34/40) of VLS#3 patients maintained remission at 9 to 12 months compared to 3% (1/36) of placebo patients (RR 20.24, 95% CI 4.28 to 95.81). A GRADE analysis indicated that the quality of evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (35 events). Adverse events included abdominal cramps, vomiting and diarrhea. There was no difference in effectiveness between glutamine and butyrate suppositories for maintenance of remission. There was no difference in clinical improvement or adverse event rates between bismuth carbomer foam enemas and placebo. Adverse events included diarrhea, worsening symptoms, cramping, sinusitis, and abdominal pain. The results of these studies are uncertain due to very low quality evidence. Prevention of pouchitis: The results of one small study (40 participants) suggest that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo for prevention of pouchitis. Ninety per cent (18/20) of VSL#3 patients had no episodes of acute pouchitis during the 12 month study compared to 60% (12/20) of placebo patients (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.21). A GRADE analysis indicated that the quality of evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (30 events). Another small study (28 participants) found that VLS#3 was not more effective than no treatment for prevention of pouchitis. Bifidobacterium longum, allopurinol and tinidazole were not more effective than placebo for prevention of pouchitis. The results of these studies are uncertain due to very low quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For acute pouchitis, very low quality evidence suggests that ciprofloxacin may be more effective than metronidazole. For chronic pouchitis, low quality evidence suggests that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission. For the prevention of pouchitis, low quality evidence suggests that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo. Well designed, adequately powered studies are needed to determine the optimal therapy for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis.
Topics: Adult; Budesonide; Ciprofloxacin; Colitis, Ulcerative; Enema; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Metronidazole; Postoperative Complications; Pouchitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Rifamycins; Rifaximin; Suppositories
PubMed: 26593456
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001176.pub3