-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2008Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is characterised by nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, hyposmia, sneezing, and, if more severe, additional malaise and fever. It affects 1-5% of the adult population each year in Europe.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, and with radiologically or bacteriologically confirmed acute sinusitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to August 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides, different doses [amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides], long-course regimens), antihistamines, cephalosporins or macrolides, decongestants (xylometazoline, phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine), doxycycline, saline nasal washes, steam inhalation, and topical corticosteroids (intra-nasal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Macrolides; Sinusitis
PubMed: 19450327
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines or nasal irrigation in improving symptoms of acute sinusitis in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (1950 to June 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, which evaluated children younger than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 662 studies identified through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Lavage; Sinusitis
PubMed: 25347280
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007909.pub4 -
Pediatrics Jul 2013In 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics published clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children. The technical... (Review)
Review
In 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics published clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children. The technical report accompanying those guidelines included 21 studies that assessed the diagnosis and management of ABS in children. This update to that report incorporates studies of pediatric ABS that have been performed since 2001. Overall, 17 randomized controlled trials of the treatment of sinusitis in children were identified and analyzed. Four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antimicrobial therapy have been published. The results of these studies varied, likely due to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria. Because of this heterogeneity, formal meta-analyses were not performed. However, qualitative analysis of these studies suggests that children with greater severity of illness at presentation are more likely to benefit from antimicrobial therapy. An additional 5 trials compared different antimicrobial therapies but did not include placebo groups. Six trials assessed a variety of ancillary treatments for ABS in children,and 3 focused on subacute sinusitis. Although the number of pediatric trials has increased since 2001, there are still limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of ABS in children. Diagnostic and treatment guidelines focusing on severity of illness at the time of presentation have the potential to identify those children most likely to benefit from antimicrobial therapy and at the same time minimize unnecessary use of antibiotics
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Child, Preschool; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23796734
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-1072 -
The Laryngoscope May 2013Acute invasive fungal sinusitis (AIFS) is an aggressive and often fatal infection. Despite improvements in medical and surgical therapy, survival remains limited and the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS
Acute invasive fungal sinusitis (AIFS) is an aggressive and often fatal infection. Despite improvements in medical and surgical therapy, survival remains limited and the factors that contribute to patient outcomes remain poorly understood. The current study systematically reviews and quantitatively synthesizes the published literature to characterize prognostic factors associated with survival.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
Fifty-two studies comprising a total of 807 patients met inclusion criteria and were used for analysis of treatment, presentation, and outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify prognostic factors.
RESULTS
All studies were classified as level 4 evidence, as per definitions provided by the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. The most common presenting symptoms of patients with AIFS were facial swelling (64.5%), fever (62.9%), and nasal congestion (52.2%). Most patients were treated with a combination of intravenous antifungal medication and surgery. The overall survival rate was 49.7%. On univariate analysis, poor prognosis was associated with renal/liver failure, altered mental status, and intracranial extension. Patients who were diabetic, had surgery, or received liposomal amphotericin B had an improved chance of survival. On multivariate analysis, advanced age and intracranial involvement were identified as independent negative prognostic factors. Positive prognostic factors again included diabetes and surgical resection.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall mortality of patients with AIFS remains high, with only half of the patients surviving. Diabetic patients appear to have a better overall survival than patients with other comorbidities. Patients who have intracranial involvement, or who do not receive surgery as part of their therapy, have a poor prognosis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
N/A.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Mycoses; Sinusitis; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 23300010
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23912 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. We considered the following four interventions: 1) decongestants versus placebo or no medication, 2) antihistamines versus placebo or no medication, 3) decongestant and antihistamine combination versus placebo or no medication, 4) nasal irrigation versus no irrigation. The primary outcomes of the review were symptom resolution (improvement in symptom score from enrolment to day five and overall symptom burden (as measured by average symptom scores while on therapy).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2012, Issue 1), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1950 to January week 3, 2012) and EMBASE (1950 to January 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which evaluated children less than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 526 studies found through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Lavage; Sinusitis
PubMed: 22972113
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007909.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Lumbosacral Region; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sciatica
PubMed: 32271952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013577 -
Cureus Jun 2023Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common inflammatory diseases. It has been recognized that intracranial vessels are involved and there might be an association with... (Review)
Review
Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common inflammatory diseases. It has been recognized that intracranial vessels are involved and there might be an association with stroke occurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between rhinosinusitis and cardiovascular diseases, especially stroke, through a literature review. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed on PubMed a literature search from February 2000 to February 2022, using the search terms 'rhinosinusitis' OR 'chronic rhinosinusitis' AND 'stroke' OR 'ischemic stroke'. Fourteen studies were eligible and included in the analysis. Overall, the studies encompassed a total of 1,006,338 patients included in this review. All studies concluded that there is a statistically significant correlation between clinical or radiological sinus inflammation and the risk of stroke, which is independent of traditional stroke risk factors. In conclusion, rhinosinusitis is associated with an increased incidence of stroke.
PubMed: 37496556
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40923 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2010The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. We considered the following four interventions: 1) decongestants versus placebo or no medication, 2) antihistamines versus placebo or no medication, 3) decongestant and antihistamine combination versus placebo or no medication, 4) nasal irrigation versus no irrigation. The primary outcomes of the review were symptom resolution (improvement in symptom score from enrolment to day 5) and overall symptom burden (as measured by average symptom scores while on therapy).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1950 to May Week 1, 2010) and EMBASE (1950 to January 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which evaluated children less than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 402 studies found through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Lavage; Sinusitis
PubMed: 21154389
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007909.pub2 -
Anales de Pediatria (Barcelona, Spain :... Mar 2011The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether antibacterial agents are more effective than either placebo or no intervention at all in the treatment of acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether antibacterial agents are more effective than either placebo or no intervention at all in the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We reviewed the databases and search engines: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in children comparing antibiotics versus placebo. Sinusitis was considered as the persistence of clinically compatible symptoms for at least 10 days. The methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Four RCTs were selected. We studied the following variables: cure, clinical improvement (on days 10 to 14), relapse-recurrence (from day 14 to day 60) and presence of adverse effects. The results were combined using meta-analysis. We used the fixed effects model or random model depending on whether or not there was heterogeneity. We estimated the combined relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Only two RCTs had a Jadad scale score ≥3. Variable cure-improvement (4 RCTs): RR 1.11 (95% CI: 0.9 to 1.3). Variable relapse-recurrence (3 RCTs): RR 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6 to 1.5). Adverse effects (4 RCTs): 2.01 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.8).
CONCLUSIONS
In children with acute sinusitis, antibacterial agents at the studied doses did not appear to provide benefit in terms of cure and improvement, assessed at 10 to 14 days of follow up. Similarly, the percentage of relapse-recurrence was not lower among children who received antibiotics. Antibiotics are associated more frequently with adverse effects.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sinusitis
PubMed: 21237732
DOI: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2010.10.011 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Apr 2020Sinusitis and rhinitis are common diseases for which patients seek medical attention. Alternative therapies constitute a multibillion-dollar industry despite poorly...
BACKGROUND
Sinusitis and rhinitis are common diseases for which patients seek medical attention. Alternative therapies constitute a multibillion-dollar industry despite poorly established efficacy and safety profiles. This study was designed to identify and grade the evidence for alternative therapies purported to treat sinusitis and rhinitis.
METHODS
A modified Delphi method was used to establish a consensus opinion among rhinology experts of the current evidence for efficacy, potential harm, and future research needs for alternative therapies in sinusitis and rhinitis. Following the initial Delphi round of discussion, a Google search query was performed to identify topics and review online reports of benefit. Subsequent rounds established search criteria and inclusion/exclusion criteria for a systematic literature review utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were used to assess levels of evidence and recommendations. Final Delphi rounds were performed until consensus opinions could be reached.
RESULTS
Over 60 potential alternative therapies for sinusitis and rhinitis were identified. The literature review included 2066 titles with 220 full-text articles found to be relevant. Most of the therapies had little to no scientific evidence; however, acupuncture, capsaicin, bromelain, and butterbur extract currently have low to moderate-high GRADE rating. Allergic rhinitis was the most common disease studied.
CONCLUSION
Some alternative therapies show promise as potential treatments for sinusitis and rhinitis, mostly compared to placebo. Comparisons to traditional therapies are lacking. For other alternative therapies, many websites included unsubstantiated claims of benefit and ignored potential side effects for which patients should be warned appropriately.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Chronic Disease; Complementary Therapies; Humans; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sinusitis
PubMed: 32104974
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22488