日本鼻学会編：鼻副鼻腔炎診療の手引き2024年版. 日鼻誌, 2024; 63(1): 1-85.
日本鼻学会編：急性鼻副鼻腔炎診療ガイドライン2010年版（追補版）. 日鼻誌, 2014; 53(2): 27–84.
Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, Toppila-Salmi S, Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Mullol J, Alobid I, Terezinha Anselmo-Lima W, Bachert C, Baroody F, von Buchwald C, Cervin A, Cohen N, Constantinidis J, De Gabory L, Desrosiers M, Diamant Z, Douglas RG, Gevaert PH, Hafner A, Harvey RJ, Joos GF, Kalogjera L, Knill A, Kocks JH, Landis BN, Limpens J, Lebeer S, Lourenco O, Meco C, Matricardi PM, O'Mahony L, Philpott CM, Ryan D, Schlosser R, Senior B, Smith TL, Teeling T, Tomazic PV, Wang DY, Wang D, Zhang L, Agius AM, Ahlstrom-Emanuelsson C, Alabri R, Albu S, Alhabash S, Aleksic A, Aloulah M, Al-Qudah M, Alsaleh S, Baban MA, Baudoin T, Balvers T, Battaglia P, Bedoya JD, Beule A, Bofares KM, Braverman I, Brozek-Madry E, Richard B, Callejas C, Carrie S, Caulley L, Chussi D, de Corso E, Coste A, El Hadi U, Elfarouk A, Eloy PH, Farrokhi S, Felisati G, Ferrari MD, Fishchuk R, Grayson W, Goncalves PM, Grdinic B, Grgic V, Hamizan AW, Heinichen JV, Husain S, Ping TI, Ivaska J, Jakimovska F, Jovancevic L, Kakande E, Kamel R, Karpischenko S, Kariyawasam HH, Kawauchi H, Kjeldsen A, Klimek L, Krzeski A, Kopacheva Barsova G, Kim SW, Lal D, Letort JJ, Lopatin A, Mahdjoubi A, Mesbahi A, Netkovski J, Nyenbue Tshipukane D, Obando-Valverde A, Okano M, Onerci M, Ong YK, Orlandi R, Otori N, Ouennoughy K, Ozkan M, Peric A, Plzak J, Prokopakis E, Prepageran N, Psaltis A, Pugin B, Raftopulos M, Rombaux P, Riechelmann H, Sahtout S, Sarafoleanu CC, Searyoh K, Rhee CS, Shi J, Shkoukani M, Shukuryan AK, Sicak M, Smyth D, Sindvongs K, Soklic Kosak T, Stjarne P, Sutikno B, Steinsvag S, Tantilipikorn P, Thanaviratananich S, Tran T, Urbancic J, Valiulius A, Vasquez de Aparicio C, Vicheva D, Virkkula PM, Vicente G, Voegels R, Wagenmann MM, Wardani RS, Welge-Lussen A, Witterick I, Wright E, Zabolotniy D, Zsolt B, Zwetsloot CP.
European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020.
Rhinology. 2020 Feb 20;58(Suppl S29):1-464. doi: 10.4193/Rhin20.600. Epub 2020 Feb 20.
Abstract/Text
The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
鈴木 賢二，黒野 祐一，池田 勝久，保富 宗城，矢野 寿一：第 6 回耳鼻咽喉科領域感染症臨床分離菌全国サーベイランス結果報告. 日耳鼻感染症エアロゾル会誌 8 (3): 193–211, 2020.
Smith SS, Ference EH, Evans CT, Tan BK, Kern RC, Chandra RK.
The prevalence of bacterial infection in acute rhinosinusitis: a Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Laryngoscope. 2015 Jan;125(1):57-69. doi: 10.1002/lary.24709. Epub 2014 Sep 17.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To systematically assess the prevalence of bacterial infection in adults with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS).
METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies published up to June 2012.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles, evaluating a total of 9,595 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ARS, were included in the study. Of these, 14 (48%) studies required radiographic confirmation of sinusitis, one study (3%) required evidence of purulence, 10 studies (35%) required both for inclusion in the study population, and four studies (14%) required neither. The random effects model estimate of prevalence of bacterial growth on all cultures was 53.7% (CI 48.4%-59.0%), ranging from 52.5% (CI 46.7%-58.3%) in studies requiring radiographic confirmation of sinusitis to 61.1% (CI 54.0%-68.1%) in studies requiring neither radiographic evidence nor purulence on exam. Studies that obtained cultures from antral swab had a prevalence of bacterial growth of 61.0% (CI 54.7%-67.2%), whereas those utilizing endoscopic meatal sampling had a prevalence of 32.9% (CI 19.0%-46.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Few studies evaluate the recovery of bacteria via culture in adults with a diagnosis of ABRS or ARS based on clinical criteria alone. With radiographic and/or endoscopic confirmation, antral puncture and endoscopically guided cultures produce positive bacterial cultures in approximately one-half of patients. Opportunities exist to improve diagnostic accuracy for bacterial infection in ARS.
© 2014 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Berger G, Steinberg DM, Popovtzer A, Ophir D.
Endoscopy versus radiography for the diagnosis of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2005 May;262(5):416-22. doi: 10.1007/s00405-004-0830-0. Epub 2004 Sep 18.
Abstract/Text
The aim of the study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy and the diagnostic value of clinical criteria for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). The hospital records of 117 consecutive patients who had symptoms compatible with ABRS and who underwent sinus radiography and flexible nasendoscopy were retrieved. A positive diagnosis was entertained when radiography demonstrated air fluid level, complete opacification or at least 6 mm mucosal thickening and/or endoscopy revealed purulent material within the drainage area of the sinuses. Using a modified version of the Hui and Walter procedure, the sensitivity and specificity of nasendoscopy was calculated against sinus radiography, a standard reference test, with known estimated sensitivity (76%) and specificity (79%). The findings show that 40 patients (34%) had positive endoscopy and radiography. Twenty patients (17%) had positive endoscopy and negative radiography, and vice versa in 15 (13%). In 42 patients (36%) both modalities were negative. Endoscopy yielded a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 0.55-1.00) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 0.33-1.00). Although estimates seem better than those of radiography, the confidence intervals are quite wide and no firm conclusion is drawn. Neither single nor combination of symptoms, concurrent with two major and one minor factor advocated by the AAO-HNS Task Force on Rhinosinusitis, were associated with a positive diagnosis of ABRS. The data suggest that endoscopy is no less effective than radiography in predicting ABRS, also that clinical criteria are of rather limited diagnostic value, and thus should be supported by other diagnostic tests. Endoscopy is recommended as a first line diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of ABRS in routine ENT practice. If the outcome is negative, radiography may follow.
Aaløkken TM, Hagtvedt T, Dalen I, Kolbenstvedt A.
Conventional sinus radiography compared with CT in the diagnosis of acute sinusitis.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003 Jan;32(1):60-2. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/65139094.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the value of plain film radiography in a prospective investigation of patients with clinical suspicion of acute sinusitis, using standard CT as a gold standard.
METHODS: 47 consecutive patients were examined. Each patient underwent conventional X-ray and standard dose CT examinations on the same day. The sensitivity and specificity of the plain film examination were calculated.
RESULTS: The specificity of the plain film examination was high, but the sensitivity was low except for the maxillary sinus (sensitivity 80%). Thus, for maxillary sinusitis, plain film examination was reasonably accurate. A negative finding in the other sinuses could not be relied upon.
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of plain film radiography for detecting sinus opacifications was unacceptably low for the ethmoid, frontal and sphenoid sinuses. The specificity was high.
Hagtvedt T,Aalokken TM, Notthenllen J,et al.Conventional sinus radiography compared with low dose CT and standard dose CT in the diagnosis of acute sinusitis.Poster publish at ECR 2002.
Reid JR.
Complications of pediatric paranasal sinusitis.
Pediatr Radiol. 2004 Dec;34(12):933-42. doi: 10.1007/s00247-004-1252-2. Epub 2004 Jul 27.
Abstract/Text
Acute paranasal sinus infection in children is often diagnosed clinically without the need for radiographic confirmation. Most cases have a favorable outcome following appropriate antibiotic therapy. A small percentage of cases where symptoms and signs are persistent or severe will require emergent imaging to rule out complications related to local spread of disease intraorbitally or intracranially. A strong index of suspicion is required in such cases, and cross-sectional imaging evaluation with CT and MRI should include axial and coronal images of the paranasal sinuses and, where appropriate, the orbits and brain (with attention to the cavernous sinus). There is no role for plain radiography in the evaluation of the complications of acute sinusitis in the pediatric patient.
Brook I.
Bacteriology of acute and chronic sphenoid sinusitis.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2002 Nov;111(11):1002-4. doi: 10.1177/000348940211101109.
Abstract/Text
Aspirates of 16 acutely infected and 7 chronically infected sphenoid sinuses were processed for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. A total of 29 isolates were recovered from the 16 cases of acute sphenoid sinusitis (1.8 per specimen): 22 aerobic and facultative (1.4 per specimen), and 7 anaerobic (0.4 per specimen). Aerobic and facultative organisms alone were recovered in 10 specimens (62%), anaerobes alone were isolated in 3 (19%), and mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were recovered in 3 (19%). The predominant aerobic and facultative species were Staphylococcus aureus (9 isolates), Streptococcus spp (9), and Haemophilus influenzae (2). A total of 28 isolates were recovered from the 7 cases of chronic sphenoid sinusitis (4.0 per specimen): 11 aerobic and facultative (1.6 per specimen) and 17 anaerobic (2.4 per specimen). Aerobic and facultative organisms alone were recovered in I instance (14%), anaerobes alone in 3 instances (43%), and mixed aerobes and anaerobes in 3 instances (43%). The predominant aerobic bacteria were gram-negative bacilli (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 1 each). The predominant anaerobes included Peptostreptococcus spp (4 isolates), Prevotella spp (5), and Fusobacterium spp (4). These findings illustrate the unique microbiology of acute and chronic sphenoid sinusitis.
Brook I.
Bacteriology of acute and chronic ethmoid sinusitis.
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Jul;43(7):3479-80. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.7.3479-3480.2005.
Abstract/Text
Aspirates from 26 acutely and 17 chronically infected ethmoid sinuses were studied. Thirty-seven aerobes and 10 anaerobes were recovered from isolates from patients with acute sinusitis. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae were predominant. Twenty-seven aerobes and 41 anaerobes were found in isolates from patients with chronic sinusitis. The predominant isolates were anaerobic gram-negative bacilli and Peptostreptococcus spp.
Gwaltney JM Jr.
Acute community-acquired sinusitis.
Clin Infect Dis. 1996 Dec;23(6):1209-23; quiz 1224-5. doi: 10.1093/clinids/23.6.1209.
Abstract/Text
保富宗城,他.急性鼻副鼻腔炎に対する gatifloxacin の有用性 スコアリングシステムを用いた評価.日本化学療法学会雑誌.56,7-15,2008.
Anon JB, Jacobs MR, Poole MD, Ambrose PG, Benninger MS, Hadley JA, Craig WA; Sinus And Allergy Health Partnership.
Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004 Jan;130(1 Suppl):1-45. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2003.12.003.
Abstract/Text
UNLABELLED: Treatment guidelines developed by the Sinus and Allergy Health Partnership for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) were originally published in 2000. These guidelines were designed to: (1) educate clinicians and patients (or patients’ families) about the differences between viral and bacterial rhinosinusitis; (2) reduce the use of antibiotics for nonbacterial nasal/sinus disease; (3) provide recommendations for the diagnosis and optimal treatment of ABRS; (4) promote the use of appropriate antibiotic therapy when bacterial infection is likely; and (5) describe the current understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics and how they relate to the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy. The original guidelines are updated here to include the most recent information on management principles, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and therapeutic options.
BURDEN OF DISEASE: An estimated 20 million cases of ABRS occur annually in the United States. According to National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data, sinusitis is the fifth most common diagnosis for which an antibiotic is prescribed. Sinusitis accounted for 9% and 21% of all pediatric and adult antibiotic prescriptions, respectively, written in 2002. The primary diagnosis of sinusitis results in expenditures of approximately $3.5 billion per year in the United States.
DEFINITION AND DIAGNOSIS OF ABRS: ABRS is most often preceded by a viral upper respiratory tract infection (URI). Allergy, trauma, dental infection, or other factors that lead to inflammation of the nose and paranasal sinuses may also predispose individuals to developing ABRS. Patients with a “common cold” (viral URI) usually report some combination of the following symptoms: sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, hyposmia/anosmia, facial pressure, postnasal drip, sore throat, cough, ear fullness, fever, and myalgia. A change in the color or the characteristic of the nasal discharge is not a specific sign of a bacterial infection. Bacterial superinfection may occur at any time during the course of a viral URI. The risk that bacterial superinfection has occurred is greater if the illness is still present after 10 days. Because there may be cases that fall out of the “norm” of this typical progression, practicing clinicians need to rely on their clinical judgment when using these guidelines. In general, however, a diagnosis of ABRS may be made in adults or children with symptoms of a viral URI that have not improved after 10 days or worsen after 5 to 7 days. There may be some or all of the following signs and symptoms: nasal drainage, nasal congestion, facial pressure/pain (especially when unilateral and focused in the region of a particular sinus), postnasal drainage, hyposmia/anosmia, fever, cough, fatigue, maxillary dental pain, and ear pressure/fullness. Physical examination provides limited information in the diagnosis of ABRS. While sometimes helpful, plain film radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging scans are not necessary for cases of ABRS.
MICROBIOLOGY OF ABRS: The most common bacterial species isolated from the maxillary sinuses of patients with ABRS are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis, the latter being more common in children. Other streptococcal species, anaerobic bacteria and Staphylococcus aureus cause a small percentage of cases.
BACTERIAL RESISTANCE IN ABRS: The increasing prevalence of penicillin nonsusceptibility and resistance to other drug classes among S pneumoniae has been a problem in the United States, with 15% being penicillin-intermediate and 25% being penicillin-resistant in recent studies. Resistance to macrolides and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) is also common in S pneumoniae. The prevalence of β-lactamase-producing isolates of H influenzae is approximately 30%, while essentially all M catarrhalis isolates produce β-lactamases. Resistance of H influenzae to TMP/SMX is also common.
ANTIMICROBIAL TREATMENT GUIDELINES FOR ABRS: These guidelines apply to both adults and children. When selecting antibiotic therapy for ABRS, the clinician should consider the severity of the disease, the rate of progression of the disease, and recent antibiotic exposure. The guidelines now divide patients with ABRS into two general categories: (1) those with mild symptoms who have not received antibiotics within the past 4 to 6 weeks, and (2) those with mild disease who have received antibiotics within the past 4 to 6 weeks or those with moderate disease regardless of recent antibiotic exposure. The difference in severity of disease does not imply infection with a resistant pathogen. Rather, this terminology indicates the relative degree of acceptance of possible treatment failure and the likelihood of spontaneous resolution of symptoms—patients with more severe symptoms are less likely to resolve their disease spontaneously. The primary goal of antibiotic therapy is to eradicate bacteria from the site of infection, which, in turn, helps (1) return the sinuses back to health; (2) decrease the duration of symptoms to allow patients to resume daily activities more quickly; (3) prevent severe complications such as meningitis and brain abscess; and (4) decrease the development of chronic disease. Severe or life-threatening infections with or without complications are rare, and are not addressed in these guidelines. Prior antibiotic use is a major risk factor associated with the development of infection with antimicrobial-resistant strains. Because recent antimicrobial exposure increases the risk of carriage of and infection due to resistant organisms, antimicrobial therapy should be based upon the patient’s history of recent antibiotic use. The panel’s guidelines, therefore, stratify patients according to antibiotic exposure in the previous 4 to 6 weeks. Lack of response to therapy at ≥72 hours is an arbitrary time established to define treatment failures. Clinicians should monitor the response to antibiotic therapy, which may include instructing the patient to call the office or clinic if symptoms persist or worsen over the next few days. The predicted bacteriologic and clinical efficacy of antibiotics in adults and children has been determined according to mathematical modeling of ABRS developed by Michael Poole, MD, PhD, based on pathogen distribution, resolution rates without treatment, and in vitro microbiologic activity. Antibiotics can be placed into the following relative rank order of predicted clinical efficacy for adults: 90% to 92% = respiratory fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin), ceftriaxone, high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (4 g/250 mg/day), and amoxicillin/clavulanate (1.75 g/250 mg/day); 83% to 88% = high-dose amoxicillin (4 g/day), amoxicillin (1.5 g/day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefixime (based on H influenzae and M catarrhalis coverage), cefuroxime axetil, cefdinir, and TMP/SMX; 77% to 81% = doxycycline, clindamycin (based on gram-positive coverage only), azithromycin, clarithromycin and erythromycin, and telithromycin; 65% to 66% = cefaclor and loracarbef. The predicted spontaneous resolution rate in patients with a clinical diagnosis of ABRS is 62%. Antibiotics can be placed into the following relative rank order of predicted clinical efficacy in children with ABRS: 91% to 92% = ceftriaxone, high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (90 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day) and amoxicillin/clavulanate (45 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day); 82% to 87% = high-dose amoxicillin (90 mg/kg per day), amoxicillin (45 mg/kg per day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefixime (based on H influenzae and M catarrhalis coverage only), cefuroxime axetil, cefdinir, and TMP/SMX; and 78% to 80% = clindamycin (based on gram-positive coverage only), cefprozil, azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin; 67% to 68% = cefaclor and loracarbef. The predicted spontaneous resolution rate in untreated children with a presumed diagnosis of ABRS is 63%. Recommendations for initial therapy for adult patients with mild disease (who have not received antibiotics in the previous 4 to 6 weeks) include the following choices: amoxicillin/clavulanate (1.75 to 4 g/250 mg per day), amoxicillin (1.5 to 4 g/day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefuroxime axetil, or cefdinir. While TMP/SMX, doxycycline, azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or telithromycin may be considered for patients with β-lactam allergies, bacteriologic failure rates of 20% to 25% are possible. Failure to respond to antimicrobial therapy after 72 hours should prompt either a switch to alternate antimicrobial therapy or reevaluation of the patient (see Table 4).When a change in antibiotic therapy is made, the clinician should consider the limitations in coverage of the initial agent. Recommendations for initial therapy for adults with mild disease who have received antibiotics in the previous 4 to 6 weeks or adults with moderate disease include the following choices: respiratory fluoroquinolone (eg, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) or high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (4 g/250 mg per day). The widespread use of respiratory fluoroquinolones for patients with milder disease may promote resistance of a wide spectrum of organisms to this class of agents. Ceftriaxone (parenteral, 1 to 2 g/day for 5 days) or combination therapy with adequate gram-positive and negative coverage may also be considered. Examples of appropriate regimens of combination therapy include high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus cefixime, or high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus rifampin. While the clinical effectiveness of ceftriaxone and these combinations for ABRS is unproven; the panel considers these reasonable therapeutic options based on the spectrum of activity of these agents and on data extrapolated from acute otitis media studies. Rifampin should not be used as monotherapy, casually, or for longer than 10 to 14 days, as resistance quickly develops to this agent. Rifampin is also a well-known inducer of several cytochrome p450 isoenzymes and therefore has a high potential for drug interactions. Failure of a patient to respond to antimicrobial therapy after 72 hours of therapy should prompt either a switch to alternate antimicrobial therapy or reevaluation of the patient (see Table 4). When a change in antibiotic therapy is made, the clinician should consider the limitations in coverage of the initial agent. Patients who have received effective antibiotic therapy and continue to be symptomatic may need further evaluation. A CT scan, fiberoptic endoscopy or sinus aspiration and culture may be necessary. Recommendations for initial therapy for children with mild disease and who have not received antibiotics in the previous 4 to 6 weeks include the following: high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (90 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day), amoxicillin (90 mg/kg per day), cefpodoxime proxetil, cefuroxime axetil, or cefdinir. TMP/SMX, azithromycin, clarithromycin, or erythromycin is recommended if the patient has a history of immediate Type I hypersensitivity reaction to β-lactams. These antibiotics have limited effectiveness against the major pathogens of ABRS and bacterial failure of 20% to 25% is possible. The clinician should differentiate an immediate hypersensitivity reaction from other less dangerous side effects. Children with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactams may need: desensitization, sinus cultures, or other ancillary procedures and studies. Children with other types of reactions and side effects may tolerate one specific β-lactam, but not another. Failure to respond to antimicrobial therapy after 72 hours should prompt either a switch to alternate antimicrobial therapy or reevaluation of the patient (see Table 5).When a change in antibiotic therapy is made, the clinician should consider the limitations in coverage of the initial agent. The recommended initial therapy for children with mild disease who have received antibiotics in the previous 4 to 6 weeks or children with moderate disease is high-dose amoxicillin/clavulanate (90 mg/6.4 mg per kg per day). Cefpodoxime proxetil, cefuroxime axetil, or cefdinir may be used if there is a penicillin allergy (eg, penicillin rash); in such instances, cefdinir is preferred because of high patient acceptance. TMP/SMX, azithromycin, clarithromycin, or erythromycin is recommended if the patient is β-lactam allergic, but these do not provide optimal coverage. Clindamycin is appropriate if S pneumoniae is identified as a pathogen. Ceftriaxone (parenteral, 50 mg/kg per day for 5 days) or combination therapy with adequate gram-positive and -negative coverage may also be considered. Examples of appropriate regimens of combination therapy include high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus cefixime, or high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus rifampin. The clinical effectiveness of ceftriaxone and these combinations for ABRS is unproven; the panel considers these reasonable therapeutic options based on spectrum of activity and on data extrapolated from acute otitis media studies. Rifampin should not be used as monotherapy, casually, or for longer than 10 to 14 days as resistance quickly develops to this agent. Failure to respond to antimicrobial therapy after 72 hours of therapy should prompt either a switch to alternate antimicrobial therapy or reevaluation of the patient (see Table 5). When a change in antibiotic therapy is made, the clinician should consider the limitations in coverage of the initial agent. Patients who have received effective antibiotic therapy and continue to be symptomatic may need further evaluation. A CT scan, fiberoptic endoscopy or sinus aspiration and culture may be necessary.
Brook I, Frazier EH, Gher ME Jr.
Microbiology of periapical abscesses and associated maxillary sinusitis.
J Periodontol. 1996 Jun;67(6):608-10. doi: 10.1902/jop.1996.67.6.608.
Abstract/Text
Aspirate of pus from 5 periapical abscesses of the upper jaw and their corresponding maxillary sinusitis were studied for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Polymicrobial flora were found in all instances, where the number of isolates varied from 2 to 5. Anaerobes were recovered from all specimens. The predominant isolates were Prevotella sp., Porphyromonas sp., Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Peptostreptococcus sp. Concordance in the microbiological findings between periapical abscess and the maxillary sinus flora was found in all instances. However, certain organisms were only present at one site and not the other. Five beta-lactamase-producing organisms were present in the five specimens. These data confirm the importance of anaerobic bacteria in periapical abscesses and demonstrate their predominance in maxillary sinusitis that is associated with them.
Venekamp RP, Thompson MJ, Hayward G, Heneghan CJ, Del Mar CB, Perera R, Glasziou PP, Rovers MM.
Systemic corticosteroids for acute sinusitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7;(12):CD008115. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008115.pub2. Epub 2011 Dec 7.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Acute sinusitis is a common reason for patients to seek primary care consultations. The related impairment of daily functioning and quality of life is attributable to symptoms such as facial pain and nasal congestion.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids in relieving symptoms of acute sinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Health Economics Database, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (January 2009 to June 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic corticosteroids to placebo or standard clinical care for patients with acute sinusitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of the trials and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs with a total of 1008 adult participants met our inclusion criteria. We judged studies to be of moderate methodological quality. Acute sinusitis was defined clinically in all trials. However, the three trials performed in ear, nose and throat (ENT) outpatient clinics also used radiological assessment as part of their inclusion criteria. All participants received oral antibiotics and were assigned to either oral corticosteroids (prednisone 24 mg to 80 mg daily or betamethasone 1 mg daily) or the control treatment (placebo in three trials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in one trial). In all trials, participants treated with oral corticosteroids were more likely to have short-term resolution or improvement of symptoms than those receiving the control treatment: at Days 3 to 7, risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8; risk difference (RD) 20% (6% to 34%) and at Days 4 to 10 or 12, RR 1.3, 95% CI (1.0 to 1.7), RD 18% (3% to 33%). An analysis of the three trials with placebo as a control treatment showed similar results but with a lesser effect size: Days 3 to 6: RR 1.2, 95% CI (1.1 to 1.4), RD 12% (5% to 19%) and Days 4 to 10 or 12: RR 1.1, 95% CI (1.0 to 1.2), RD 10% (3% to 16%). Scenario analysis showed that outcomes missing from the trial reports might have introduced attrition bias (a worst-case scenario showed no statistically significant beneficial effect of oral corticosteroids). We did not identify any data on the long-term effects of oral corticosteroids on this condition, such as effects on relapse or recurrence rates. Reported side effects of oral corticosteroids were limited and mild.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that oral corticosteroids as an adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotics are effective for short-term relief of symptoms in acute sinusitis. However, data are limited and there is a significant risk of bias. High quality trials assessing the efficacy of systemic corticosteroids both as an adjuvant and a monotherapy in primary care patients with acute sinusitis should be initiated.
Venekamp RP, Thompson MJ, Rovers MM.
Systemic corticosteroid therapy for acute sinusitis.
JAMA. 2015 Mar 24-31;313(12):1258-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.14418.
Abstract/Text
CLINICAL QUESTION: Are oral or parenteral corticosteroids associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute sinusitis compared with placebo or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)?
BOTTOM LINE: Oral corticosteroids combined with antibiotics may be associated with modest benefit for short-term relief of symptoms in adults with severe symptoms of acute sinusitis compared with antibiotics alone. Oral corticosteroids as monotherapy are not associated with improved clinical outcomes in adults with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis.
Kassel JC, King D, Spurling GK.
Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;(3):CD006821. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006821.pub2. Epub 2010 Mar 17.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation, and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and mucolytic drugs, and often antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for chronic or allergic sinusitis, but little is known about its effect on acute URTIs.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of saline nasal irrigation in treating the symptoms of acute URTIs.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009), EMBASE (1974 to May 2009), CINAHL (1982 to May 2009), AMED (1985 to 2009) and LILACS (May 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (DK, GS) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. All data were analysed using Cochrane Review Manager software.
MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs (618 participants) were included. Most results showed no difference between nasal saline treatment and control. However, there was limited evidence of benefit with nasal saline irrigation in adults. One study showed a mean difference of 0.3 day (out of eight days) for symptom resolution, but this was not significant. Nasal saline irrigation was associated with less time off work in one study. Minor discomfort was not uncommon and 40% of babies did not tolerate nasal saline drops.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Included trials were too small and had too high a risk of bias to be confident about the possible benefits of nasal saline irrigation in acute URTIs. Future trials should involve much larger numbers of participants and be rigorously designed and controlled.
Ragab A, Farahat T, Al-Hendawy G, Samaka R, Ragab S, El-Ghobashy A.
Nasal saline irrigation with or without systemic antibiotics in treatment of children with acute rhinosinusitis.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Dec;79(12):2178-86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.09.045. Epub 2015 Oct 22.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is a common pediatric problem. Our aim was to determine the efficacy of normal nasal saline irrigation (NSI) with or without amoxicillin in treatment of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) in children.
METHODS: It is a prospective randomized, blind placebo-controlled trial. Children with uncomplicated ARS were recruited. One group received (amoxacillin 100mg/kg/day) and 0.9% NSI. The second group received placebo and 0.9% NSI. The primary outcome was the effect of treatment on clinical response. Secondary outcomes included: Rating of Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ), middle meatus (MM) bacteriological and cytological cellular responses and adverse effects.
RESULTS: Sixty two patients with ARS were eligible for the study. In amoxicillin group (31 patients); clinical cure was observed in 26 (83.9%) in comparison to 22 (71%) patients in NSI without antibiotics group (31 patients) (p=0.22). No differences between both groups in the reported nasal symptom scores and total symptoms scores improvements at day 7 (p=0.09 and 0.65) and day 14 (p=0.29 and 0.14), respectively. The mean total PRQLQ values had no differences between both groups after the 2 weeks of treatment (p=0.06). At day 7, MM neutrophils reduced significantly in amoxicillin group in comparison to placebo group (p=0.004). At day 14, the MM cytological content had no differences between both groups (p=0.07). Normal NSI with placebo has less reported adverse effects than amoxicillin and nasal saline irrigations (p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: NSI can be used alone with the same clinical, bacteriological and cytological cellular changes efficacy and with higher safety profile than amoxicillin after 14 days of treatment in uncomplicated clinically diagnosed ARS in children.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Veskitkul J, Vichyanond P, Pacharn P, Visitsunthorn N, Jirapongsananuruk O.
Clinical characteristics of recurrent acute rhinosinusitis in children.
Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2015 Dec;33(4):276-80. doi: 10.12932/AP0591.33.4.2015.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: Recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS) is defined as multiple episodes of acute rhinosinusitis in which the symptoms and signs of infection resolve completely between episodes. Limited data are available on the characteristics and preventive therapy of RARS. This study evaluated the clinical characteristics and predisposing factors of RARS in children as well as the preventive therapy.
METHODS: Medical records of children with RARS diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2012 were obtained. Demographic data, presenting symptoms, predisposing factors and preventive therapy were reviewed.
RESULTS: Ninety-four children with RARS were recruited. The mean age was 7.7±2.6 years, with a mean age of onset of 4.0±1.4 years. Sixty-one patients (64.9%) were boys and 56 patients (59.6%) had family history of atopy. The most common presenting symptom of RARS was purulent nasal discharge (100.0%), followed by nasal congestion (68.1%) and postnasal drainage (31.9%). The most common predisposing factor for RARS was immunoglobulin G subclass deficiency (78.7%), followed by non-allergic rhinitis (64.9%) and allergic rhinitis (35.1%). Sixty-five children (69.1%) received preventive therapy for RARS. The responses to preventive measures were: 80.0% (32/40 patients) to oral antibiotic prophylaxis, 50.0% (11/22 patients) to adenotonsillectomy, 91.7% (11/12 patients) to specific allergen immunotherapy, 27.3% (3/11 patients) to gentamicin nasal irrigation, and 66.7% (4/6 patients) to intravenous immunoglobulin.
CONCLUSION: The most common presenting symptoms of RARS in children were purulent nasal discharge, nasal congestion and postnasal drainage. Children with RARS should be evaluated for the presence of underlying conditions such as immunodeficiency and allergic disease, which led to the appropriate management for these children.
Rosenfeld RM, Andes D, Bhattacharyya N, Cheung D, Eisenberg S, Ganiats TG, Gelzer A, Hamilos D, Haydon RC 3rd, Hudgins PA, Jones S, Krouse HJ, Lee LH, Mahoney MC, Marple BF, Mitchell CJ, Nathan R, Shiffman RN, Smith TL, Witsell DL.
Clinical practice guideline: adult sinusitis.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Sep;137(3 Suppl):S1-31. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.06.726.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing sinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses. Sinusitis affects 1 in 7 adults in the United States, resulting in about 31 million individuals diagnosed each year. Since sinusitis almost always involves the nasal cavity, the term rhinosinusitis is preferred. The guideline target patient is aged 18 years or older with uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, evaluated in any setting in which an adult with rhinosinusitis would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage adults with sinusitis.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of ancillary tests that include nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of allergy, emergency medicine, family medicine, health insurance, immunology, infectious disease, internal medicine, medical informatics, nursing, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pulmonology, and radiology.
RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations that 1) clinicians should distinguish presumed acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) from acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions, and a clinician should diagnose ABRS when (a) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis are present 10 days or more beyond the onset of upper respiratory symptoms, or (b) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis worsen within 10 days after an initial improvement (double worsening), and 2) the management of ABRS should include an assessment of pain, with analgesic treatment based on the severity of pain. The panel made a recommendation against radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for acute rhinosinusitis, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected. The panel made recommendations that 1) if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic agent, the clinician should prescribe amoxicillin as first-line therapy for most adults, 2) if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days, the clinician should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications, 3) clinicians should distinguish chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms, 4) clinicians should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis for factors that modify management, such as allergic rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, ciliary dyskinesia, and anatomic variation, 5) the clinician should corroborate a diagnosis and/or investigate for underlying causes of CRS and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, 6) the clinician should obtain computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 7) clinicians should educate/counsel patients with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis regarding control measures. The panel offered as options that 1) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing viral rhinosinusitis, 2) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing ABRS, 3) observation without use of antibiotics is an option for selected adults with uncomplicated ABRS who have mild illness (mild pain and temperature <38.3 degrees C or 101 degrees F) and assurance of follow-up, 4) the clinician may obtain nasal endoscopy in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 5) the clinician may obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis.
DISCLAIMER: This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance for managing adults with rhinosinusitis. Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.
Berg O, Carenfelt C.
Analysis of symptoms and clinical signs in the maxillary sinus empyema.
Acta Otolaryngol. 1988 Mar-Apr;105(3-4):343-9. doi: 10.3109/00016488809097017.
Abstract/Text
One hundred and fifty-five patients with complaints indicating acute sinusitis were examined and their symptoms and signs registered. The final diagnosis--maxillary sinus empyema versus not empyema--was established by means of antral aspiration. A computer-based analysis of clinical data demonstrated the significance of the clinical examination. Local symptoms such as pain and purulent rhinorrhea with unilateral predominance were particularly guiding, even in bilateral cases, while nasal obstruction, tenderness during percussion, and affected general condition were not. With an overall reliability of about 85%, appropriate therapy can be suggested based on the clinical findings alone.
Axelsson A, Runze U.
Symptoms and signs of acute maxillary sinusitis.
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1976;38(5):298-308. doi: 10.1159/000275288.
Abstract/Text
Symptoms and signs of acute maxillary sinusitis have seldom been specifically analyzed. Since there is a gradual transition from rhinitis to sinusitis it can be expected that many symptoms are common for the two diseases. However, since sinusitis requires drainage measures and/or antibiotic treatment, both of which seldom are actual for rhinitis, the differential diagnosis is important. The present investigation confirms most of the symptoms presented previously in textbooks. However, most of these sympatoms which conventionally are supposed to indicate sinus disease were found to be just as common in radiologically normal sinuses and in sinuses with pronounced changes. The subjective or objective finding of purulent nasal secretion was more helpful in the differentiation between rhinitis and sinusitis. It appears that the patient's symptoms do not constitute a reliable diagnostic basis for the confident differentiation between the two diseases. The simplest and least discomfortable means of demonstrating sinusitis is by radiology.
Axelsson A, Runze U.
Comparison of subjective and radiological findings during the course of acute maxillary sinusitis.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1983 Jan-Feb;92(1 Pt 1):75-7. doi: 10.1177/000348948309200118.
Abstract/Text
Some of the most common symptoms and signs of acute maxillary sinusitis were graded and compared with the radiological findings during the course of the disease. Four different treatment modes were used in 176 patients. The radiological and the subjective findings did not differ among the groups, which consequently were evaluated as an entity. The radiographic results demonstrated that the healing course during the first 15 treatment days follows an even regression line. The subjective findings show a more marked improvement during the first five days than subsequently, and also a more rapid initial improvement than radiography shows. The cough symptom showed the slowest recovery subjectively and also compared most closely with radiological findings. Patients with sinusitis which did not show an initial healing radiographically also had more marked symptoms the fifth day, and vice versa: patients who showed less than average healing subjectively also showed a slower healing radiographically.
Williams JW Jr, Simel DL, Roberts L, Samsa GP.
Clinical evaluation for sinusitis. Making the diagnosis by history and physical examination.
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Nov 1;117(9):705-10. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-9-705.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most useful clinical examination findings for the diagnosis of acute and subacute sinusitis.
DESIGN: Prospective comparison of clinical findings with radiographs.
SETTING: General medicine clinics at a university-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
PATIENTS: Two hundred forty-seven consecutive adult men with rhinorrhea (51%), facial pain (22%) , or self-suspected sinusitis (27%) (median age, 50 years; median duration of symptoms, 11.5 days).
MEASUREMENTS: Patients were examined by a principal investigator (86%) or by a staff general internist, internal medicine resident (postgraduate year 2 or 3), or physician assistant, all blinded to radiographic results. All examiners recorded the presence or absence of 16 historical items, 5 physical examination items, and the clinical impression for sinusitis (high, intermediate, or low probability). The criterion standard was paranasal sinus radiographs (4 views), which were interpreted by radiologists blinded to clinical findings.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients meeting entrance criteria had sinusitis. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were measured for clinical items. Logistic regression analysis showed five independent predictors of sinusitis: maxillary toothache (odds ratio, 2.9), transillumination (odds ratio, 2.7), poor response to nasal decongestants or antihistamines (odds ratio, 2.4), colored nasal discharge reported by the patient (odds ratio, 2.2), or mucopurulence seen during examination (odds ratio, 2.9). THe overall clinical impression was more accurate than any single finding: high probability (likelihood ratio, 4.7, intermediate (likelihood ratio, 1.4), low probability (likelihood ratio, 0.4).
CONCLUSIONS: General internists, focusing on five clinical findings and their overall clinical impression, can effectively stratify male patients with sinus symptoms as having a high, intermediate, or low probability of sinusitis.
Fokkens W, Lund V, Bachert C, Clement P, Helllings P, Holmstrom M, Jones N, Kalogjera L, Kennedy D, Kowalski M, Malmberg H, Mullol J, Passali D, Stammberger H, Stierna P; EAACI.
EAACI position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps executive summary.
Allergy. 2005 May;60(5):583-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00830.x.
Abstract/Text
Chow AW, Benninger MS, Brook I, Brozek JL, Goldstein EJ, Hicks LA, Pankey GA, Seleznick M, Volturo G, Wald ER, File TM Jr; Infectious Diseases Society of America.
IDSA clinical practice guideline for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in children and adults.
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;54(8):e72-e112. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir1043. Epub 2012 Mar 20.
Abstract/Text
Evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and initial management of suspected acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults and children were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America comprising clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, otolaryngology, public health, epidemiology, and adult and pediatric infectious disease specialties. Recommendations for diagnosis, laboratory investigation, and empiric antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy were developed.
Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley JO, Simon G, Jordan WS Jr.
Rhinovirus infections in an industrial population. II. Characteristics of illness and antibody response.
JAMA. 1967 Nov 6;202(6):494-500.
Abstract/Text
Casiano RR.
Treatment of acute and chronic rhinosinusitis.
Semin Respir Infect. 2000 Sep;15(3):216-26. doi: 10.1053/srin.2000.18071.
Abstract/Text
Rhinosinusitis is a common health complaint that is often seen by primary care physicians and otolaryngologists in the United States. The complicated anatomy of the paranasal sinuses, as well as the multiple etiologies, contributes to the complexity that one often faces in trying to ameliorate or eradicate this disease in affected individuals. A full understanding of the fundamentals of rhinosinusitis, as well as the treatment options available for the different types, is important. It is very important for the physician to take an organized, step-by-step approach to the management of each patient with this complicated disease. As most cases of rhinosinusitis presenting to the generalist's office will be of viral origin, antibiotics should not be given unless the patient has purulent rhinorrhea or worsening symptoms lasting more than 5 days, or total symptoms lasting longer than 10 days. When medical treatment fails or is incomplete, adjunctive surgical treatment becomes an option. Generally, the symptoms that are most helped by surgery include persistent headaches, nasal obstruction, and recurrent or persistent purulent rhinorrhea unresponsive to medical management. Appropriate and timely referral for specialty care will result in the definitive management of recalcitrant rhinosinusitis when medical management alone fails or in cases where a complication or malignancy is suspected. This article reviews the current understanding of the anatomy, pathophysiology, classification, diagnosis, and potential complications of rhinosinusitis. It also describes the current approach to the treatment of both acute and chronic rhinosinusitis.
Young J, De Sutter A, Merenstein D, van Essen GA, Kaiser L, Varonen H, Williamson I, Bucher HC.
Antibiotics for adults with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.
Lancet. 2008 Mar 15;371(9616):908-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60416-X.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Primary-care physicians continue to overprescribe antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis because distinction between viral and bacterial sinus infection is difficult. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomised trials based on individual patients' data to assess whether common signs and symptoms can be used to identify a subgroup of patients who benefit from antibiotics.
METHODS: We identified suitable trials--in which adult patients with rhinosinusitis-like complaints were randomly assigned to treatment with an antibiotic or a placebo--by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase, and reference lists of reports describing such trials. Individual patients' data from 2547 adults in nine trials were checked and re-analysed. We assessed the overall effect of antibiotic treatment and the prognostic value of common signs and symptoms by the number needed to treat (NNT) with antibiotics to cure one additional patient.
FINDINGS: 15 patients with rhinosinusitis-like complaints would have to be given antibiotics before an additional patient was cured (95% CI NNT[benefit] 7 to NNT[harm] 190). Patients with purulent discharge in the pharynx took longer to cure than those without this sign; the NNT was 8 patients with this sign before one additional patient was cured (95% CI NNT[benefit] 4 to NNT[harm] 47). Patients who were older, reported symptoms for longer, or reported more severe symptoms also took longer to cure but were no more likely to benefit from antibiotics than other patients.
INTERPRETATION: Common clinical signs and symptoms cannot identify patients with rhinosinusitis for whom treatment is clearly justified. Antibiotics are not justified even if a patient reports symptoms for longer than 7-10 days.
Garbutt JM, Banister C, Spitznagel E, Piccirillo JF.
Amoxicillin for acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA. 2012 Feb 15;307(7):685-92. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.138.
Abstract/Text
CONTEXT: Evidence to support antibiotic treatment for acute rhinosinusitis is limited, yet antibiotics are commonly used.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental effect of amoxicillin treatment over symptomatic treatments for adults with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adults with uncomplicated, acute rhinosinusitis were recruited from 10 community practices in Missouri between November 1, 2006, and May 1, 2009.
INTERVENTIONS: Ten-day course of either amoxicillin (1500 mg/d) or placebo administered in 3 doses per day. All patients received a 5- to 7-day supply of symptomatic treatments for pain, fever, cough, and nasal congestion to use as needed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was improvement in disease-specific quality of life after 3 to 4 days of treatment assessed with the Sinonasal Outcome Test-16 (minimally important difference of 0.5 units on a 0-3 scale). Secondary outcomes included the patient's retrospective assessment of change in sinus symptoms and functional status, recurrence or relapse, and satisfaction with and adverse effects of treatment. Outcomes were assessed by telephone interview at days 3, 7, 10, and 28.
RESULTS: A total of 166 adults (36% male; 78% with white race) were randomized to amoxicillin (n = 85) or placebo (n = 81); 92% concurrently used 1 or more symptomatic treatments (94% for amoxicillin group vs 90% for control group; P = .34). The mean change in Sinonasal Outcome Test-16 scores was not significantly different between groups on day 3 (decrease of 0.59 in the amoxicillin group and 0.54 in the control group; mean difference between groups of 0.03 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.19]) and on day 10 (mean difference between groups of 0.01 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.15]), but differed at day 7 favoring amoxicillin (mean difference between groups of 0.19 [95% CI, 0.024 to 0.35]). There was no statistically significant difference in reported symptom improvement at day 3 (37% for amoxicillin group vs 34% for control group; P = .67) or at day 10 (78% vs 80%, respectively; P = .71), whereas at day 7 more participants treated with amoxicillin reported symptom improvement (74% vs 56%, respectively; P = .02). No between-group differences were found for any other secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events occurred.
CONCLUSION: Among patients with acute rhinosinusitis, a 10-day course of amoxicillin compared with placebo did not reduce symptoms at day 3 of treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00377403.
Rosenfeld RM, Piccirillo JF, Chandrasekhar SS, Brook I, Ashok Kumar K, Kramper M, Orlandi RR, Palmer JN, Patel ZM, Peters A, Walsh SA, Corrigan MD.
Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Apr;152(2 Suppl):S1-S39. doi: 10.1177/0194599815572097.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: This update of a 2007 guideline from the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations to manage adult rhinosinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. Changes from the prior guideline include a consumer added to the update group, evidence from 42 new systematic reviews, enhanced information on patient education and counseling, a new algorithm to clarify action statement relationships, expanded opportunities for watchful waiting (without antibiotic therapy) as initial therapy of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), and 3 new recommendations for managing chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing adult rhinosinusitis and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, promote appropriate use of ancillary tests to confirm diagnosis and guide management, and promote judicious use of systemic and topical therapy, which includes radiography, nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. Emphasis was also placed on identifying multiple chronic conditions that would modify management of rhinosinusitis, including asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia.
ACTION STATEMENTS: The update group made strong recommendations that clinicians (1) should distinguish presumed ABRS from acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions and (2) should confirm a clinical diagnosis of CRS with objective documentation of sinonasal inflammation, which may be accomplished using anterior rhinoscopy, nasal endoscopy, or computed tomography. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should either offer watchful waiting (without antibiotics) or prescribe initial antibiotic therapy for adults with uncomplicated ABRS; (2) should prescribe amoxicillin with or without clavulanate as first-line therapy for 5 to 10 days (if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic); (3) should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days after diagnosis or worsens during the initial management; (4) should distinguish CRS and recurrent ARS from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms; (5) should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent ARS for multiple chronic conditions that would modify management, such as asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia; (6) should confirm the presence or absence of nasal polyps in a patient with CRS; and (7) should recommend saline nasal irrigation, topical intranasal corticosteroids, or both for symptom relief of CRS. The update group stated as options that clinicians may (1) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation for symptomatic relief of viral rhinosinusitis; (2) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation) for symptomatic relief of ABRS; and (3) obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent ARS. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should not obtain radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for ARS, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected, and (2) should not prescribe topical or systemic antifungal therapy for patients with CRS.
© American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2015.
Meltzer EO, Bachert C, Staudinger H.
Treating acute rhinosinusitis: comparing efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray, amoxicillin, and placebo.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005 Dec;116(6):1289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.08.044. Epub 2005 Oct 24.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids used with antibiotics are known to improve rhinosinusitis symptoms compared with antibiotic therapy alone. However, the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroid monotherapy for acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis is not established.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) versus amoxicillin and placebo in patients with acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis.
METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, subjects (> or =12 years; N = 981) were randomized to MFNS 200 microg once daily or twice daily for 15 days, amoxicillin 500 mg 3 times daily for 10 days, or respective placebo. Follow-up was 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean am/pm major symptom score over the treatment phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints included total symptom score. Safety assessments included disease recurrence during follow-up and adverse event monitoring.
RESULTS: Mometasone furoate nasal spray 200 microg twice daily was significantly superior to placebo (P < .001) and amoxicillin (P = .002) at improving major symptom score. Starting on day 2, MFNS 200 microg twice daily improved total symptom score throughout treatment versus amoxicillin (P = .012) and placebo (P < .001). Global response to treatment was significantly greater with MFNS 200 microg twice daily versus amoxicillin (P = .013) and placebo (P = .001). Although significantly superior to placebo, MFNS 200 microg once daily was not superior to amoxicillin for the primary or secondary efficacy endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION: In patients with acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, MFNS 200 microg twice daily produced significant symptom improvements versus amoxicillin and placebo, without predisposing the patient to disease recurrence or bacterial infection.
Barlan IB, Erkan E, Bakir M, Berrak S, Başaran MM.
Intranasal budesonide spray as an adjunct to oral antibiotic therapy for acute sinusitis in children.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997 Jun;78(6):598-601. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)63223-1.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The role of topical corticosteroids in the treatment of acute sinusitis has not been established in children.
OBJECTIVE: An attempt was made to determine the impact of topical corticosteroids as an adjunct to antibiotic treatment in the management of childhood sinusitis.
METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 151 children with sinusitis were recruited from a general pediatric outpatient clinic and 89 completed a 3-week trial. Treatment consisted of amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium, 40 mg/kg/d tid, combined with bid nasal spray of either budesonide, 50 micrograms, to each nostril (n = 43) or placebo )n = 46_ for 3 weeks. Patients maintained daily symptom cards throughout the study and were examined by the same physician each week.
RESULTS: Clinical symptoms and signs decreased significantly in both treatment groups in comparison to baseline (P < .01). We detected a significant improvement in the scores of the cough and nasal discharge at the end of second week in the budesonide group when compared with placebo (P < .05). Friedman nonparametric repeated measures ANOVA test revealed a significant decrease in the total weekly scores of cough during the second week of budesonide treatment (P < .001) in contrast to continuous decline during the second and third weeks in the placebo group (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). While the nasal discharge score decreased significantly during the second week in the budesonide group (P < .01), no significant effect on the nasal discharge score was observed in the placebo group.
CONCLUSION: These data suggest that topical corticosteroids may be a useful ancillary treatment to antibiotics in childhood sinusitis and effective in reducing the cough and nasal discharge earlier in the course of acute sinusitis.
Yilmaz G, Varan B, Yilmaz T, Gürakan B.
Intranasal budesonide spray as an adjunct to oral antibiotic therapy for acute sinusitis in children.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;257(5):256-9. doi: 10.1007/s004050050234.
Abstract/Text
We investigated the clinical value of intranasal budesonide in acute sinusitis in 52 children with acute maxillary sinusitis. We randomly divided them into two groups: group 1 received oral pseudoephedrine (2 x 30 mg) and cefaclor (40 mg/kg) for 10 days, and group 2 received intranasal budesonide (2 x 100 microg) and cefaclor (40 mg/kg) for 10 days. Symptoms of headache, cough, and nasal stuffiness and signs of nasal discharge were graded before and after treatment. The patients whose symptoms and signs completely normalized after treatment were considered to have recovered, and those with persisting symptoms and signs after treatment as having not recovered. The results of the two treatment groups were compared. The recovery rate of the children in group 2 were significantly higher than those in group 1 (P < 0.05). No adverse drug effects were determined during the study period. These findings suggest that topical steroids may be a useful adjunctive agent in the treatment of acute sinusitis of children without apparent side effects and can possibly hasten the resolution of symptoms.
Bachert C, Meltzer EO.
Effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray on quality of life of patients with acute rhinosinusitis.
Rhinology. 2007 Sep;45(3):190-6.
Abstract/Text
This study evaluated the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, HRQoL was assessed in 340 patients using the SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-20 questionnaire at baseline and after 15 days of treatment with MFNS 200 g once-daily (q.d.) or twice-daily (b.i.d.), amoxicillin 500 mg three times daily (t.i.d.), or placebo. Baseline mean total scores for SNOT-20 were similar in the four groups (2.15-2.23). At endpoint, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean total score only with MFNS 200 g b.i.d. (p = 0.047 versus placebo). MFNS was associated with numerical improvements in all SNOT-20 items compared with placebo. Treatment with MFNS 200 g b.i.d. is associated with a significant improvement in HRQoL compared with placebo in patients with acute, uncomplicated rhinosinusitis.
Stringer SP, Mancuso AA, Avino AJ.
Effect of a topical vasoconstrictor on computed tomography of paranasal sinus disease.
Laryngoscope. 1993 Jan;103(1 Pt 1):6-9. doi: 10.1288/00005537-199301000-00002.
Abstract/Text
Apparent ethmoid inflammation which resolved with alternation of the nasal cycle or following application of topical vasoconstrictors has been observed with magnetic resonance imaging. A similar phenomenon might occur to a lesser degree with computed tomography (CT), leading to overdiagnosis of limited sinus disease. The degree to which ostiomeatal complex disease is reversible by topical vasoconstrictors was investigated. Ten patients with histories of chronic or recurrent sinusitis underwent coronal CT studies of the paranasal sinuses before and after the application of a topical vasoconstrictor. Mucosal volume or thickness measurements were obtained from the turbinates, infundibulum, ethmoidal cells, and antrum. Vasoconstrictor application markedly reduced turbinate size and appeared to reduce mucosal thickening in the ethmoidal infundibulum. Minimal mucosal changes identified in the paranasal sinuses by computed tomography were not reversed by vasoconstrictors and therefore are likely to be pathologic.
Inanli S, Oztürk O, Korkmaz M, Tutkun A, Batman C.
The effects of topical agents of fluticasone propionate, oxymetazoline, and 3% and 0.9% sodium chloride solutions on mucociliary clearance in the therapy of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in vivo.
Laryngoscope. 2002 Feb;112(2):320-5. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200202000-00022.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to determine: 1) how mucociliary activity in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is affected; 2) how this activity is changed by therapy; 3) the effects of topical agents on mucociliary clearance, and 4) the most appropriate topical agent(s) to be used in the therapy of sinusitis.
STUDY DESIGN: Five groups of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were studied prospectively.
METHODS: All patients had 500 mg oral amoxicillin and 125 mg oral clavulanic acid preparations given three times daily for 3 weeks. According to the topical agent applications, these groups included: group I (n = 12), no topical treatment was given; group II (n = 14), two puffs for each nostril once daily of 50 microg/100 mL fluticasone propionate was given; group III (n = 9), one puff for each nostril three times daily of 0.05% oxymetazoline was given; group IV (n =12), 3% sodium chloride (NaCl) (buffered to pH 6.5-7 at room temperature) was given; and group V (n =13), 10-mL solutions of 0.9% NaCl (buffered to pH 6.5--7 at room temperature) were given for nasal irrigations three times daily. All patients had medication for 3 weeks and were controlled each week. The saccharin method was used to measure nasal mucociliary clearance. To investigate the early effects of the topical agents for groups II to V, an additional test was repeated 20 minutes after the basal mucociliary clearance recordings. The test was repeated in the first, second, and third weeks of the treatment.
RESULTS: The mucociliary clearance was significantly slower in the acute bacterial rhinosinusitis group than in the control group. There was no significant difference between the basal mucociliary clearance and the 20th minute mucociliary clearance of the fluticasone propionate and 0.9% NaCl solution groups. The mean values of the basal and the 20 minute's mucociliary clearance of the oxymetazoline group were 24.72 +/- 6.16 and 15.5 +/- 7.45 minutes, respectively, which were statistically significant. The mean values of the basal and the 20th minute mucociliary clearance of the 3% NaCl solution groups were 19.45 +/- 9.35 and 15.45 +/- 8.20 minutes, respectively, which were also statistically significant. In the first group (without topical treatment), the basal mucociliary clearance became significantly shorter after the second week of treatment. In the first and second weeks of the treatment of the oxymetazoline group, the mucociliary clearance did not change significantly, but after the third week the mucociliary clearance was significantly shorter. In the 3% NaCl solution group, significant improvement began from the first week and continued through the third week. Comparing the basal and the third weeks' mucociliary clearance values among the groups, the oxymetazoline and 3% NaCl solution groups revealed more significant improvement than the other groups, but this improvement was not different from the improvement of group I. There was still a statistically significant difference in the mucociliary clearance of the post-treatment sinusitis groups from the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The oxymetazoline and 3% NaCl solution groups seemed to be more effective in mucociliary clearance, but there was no significant difference in improvement among the groups. The improvement of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis takes more than 3 weeks, according to the mucociliary clearance values of the groups.
Wiklund L, Stierna P, Berglund R, Westrin KM, Tönnesson M.
The efficacy of oxymetazoline administered with a nasal bellows container and combined with oral phenoxymethyl-penicillin in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis.
Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1994;515:57-64. doi: 10.3109/00016489409124326.
Abstract/Text
The efficacy of a new administration form of oxymetazoline, a nasal bellows container, was investigated in two separate studies by means of a combined treatment with phenoxymethyl-penicillin for acute maxillary sinusitis. In the first study (study 1), oxymetazoline administered with a bellows (OXBE) was compared both with a placebo belows (PLBE) as well as with oxymetazoline and placebo administered with a conventional nasal spray (OXSP respective PLSP) in 73 patients. In the second study (study 2), OXBE was compared only with PLBE in 48 patients. Objective evaluation was made by comparing the radiographical improvement in conventional plain sinus X-ray images. A scoring system corresponding to the outcome of antral irrigation was used for evaluating the X-ray pictures. Subjective symptoms; nasal stuffiness and pain, were assessed by registrations on visual analogue scales. Neither with regard to radiographical improvement nor to decrease in subjective symptoms could any significant differences be found between the different treatment modes. Oxymetazoline administered with a nasal bellows thus did not accelerate the rate of healing of acute maxillary sinusitis in these two studies. It is inferred from these results that decongestion of the sinus ostia is not of primary importance for the course of healing of a manifest acute sinusitis.
Scheid DC, Hamm RM.
Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults: part II. Treatment.
Am Fam Physician. 2004 Nov 1;70(9):1697-704.
Abstract/Text
Although most cases of acute rhinosinusitis are caused by viruses, acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is a fairly common complication. Even though most patients with acute rhinosinusitis recover promptly without it, antibiotic therapy should be considered in patients with prolonged or more severe symptoms. To avoid the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, narrow-spectrum antibiotics such as amoxicillin should be used for 10 to 14 days. In patients with mild disease who have beta-lactam allergy, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or doxycycline are options. Second-line antibiotics should be considered if the patient has moderate disease, recent antibiotic use (past six weeks), or no response to treatment within 72 hours. Amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium and fluoroquinolones have the best coverage for Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. In patients with beta-lactam hypersensitivity who have moderate disease, a fluoroquinolone should be prescribed. The evidence supporting the use of ancillary treatments is limited. Decongestants often are recommended, and there is some evidence to support their use, although topical decongestants should not be used for more than three days to avoid rebound congestion. Topical ipratropium and the sedating antihistamines have anticholinergic effects that maybe beneficial, but there are no clinical studies supporting this possibility. Nasal irrigation with hypertonic and normal saline has been beneficial in chronic sinusitis and has no serious adverse effects. Nasal corticosteroids also may be beneficial in treating chronic sinusitis. Mist, zinc salt lozenges, echinacea extract, and vitamin C have no proven benefit in the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.
山田武千代, 斎藤等, 藤枝重治, 森繁人, 木村有一, 野田一郎, 須藤正治, 田中信之, 小嶋章 弘, 鎌数清麿, 黒川泰資, 清水元博, 滝元徹, 坪川俊仁, 徳田安誠, 原誠彦, 福辻範彦, 宮崎 為夫:鼻副鼻腔炎における中鼻道処置の有効性耳鼻咽喉科臨床 2002;95(2):153-157.
坂下雅文, 粛藤等, 山田武千代, 高橋昇, 藤枝重治： 副鼻腔炎治療における耳鼻咽喉科専門 処置 左右側比較による中鼻道処置の有効性日本鼻科学会会誌 2006;45(1):25-28.
Wan KS, Wu WF, Chen TC, Wu CS, Hung CW, Chang YS.
Comparison of amoxicillin + clavulanate with or without intranasal fluticasone for the treatment of uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis in children.
Minerva Pediatr. 2015 Dec;67(6):489-94.
Abstract/Text
AIM: Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) have been proven effective in controlling postnasal drip, decreasing inflammatory response, reducing nasal swelling, and increasing aeration of the sinuses such that INS are recommended as treatment of sinusitis.
METHODS: Fifty children with acute rhinosinusitis, 50 children with acute rhiniosinusitis and allergic rhinitis (AR), and 20 rhiniosinusitis children as control were selected for investigation. Each group had a single-blind treatment of three types: with coamoxiclav only, with coamoxiclav plus INS, and with matched placebo (without antibiotics and INS) for two weeks. Nasal symptoms were then evaluated. The outcome was measured by using major symptom score (MSS) after treatment for 14 days.
RESULTS: Therapeutic effectiveness was 92% in rhinosinusitis patients treated with co-amoxiclav and 84% in those treated with co-amoxiclav plus INS. Among patients with sinusitis combined with AR, therapeutic efficacy was 88% for those treated with co-amoxiclav and 96% for those treated with co-amoxiclav plus INS. Only 30% of the symptoms were reduced in the placebo group.
CONCLUSION: There are no statistical differences in the acute sinusitis group treated with co-amoxiclav with or without INS. In the sinusitis with AR group, the efficacy of co-amoxiclav with INS is higher than in children treated with co-amoxiclav alone.
Falagas ME, Karageorgopoulos DE, Grammatikos AP, Matthaiou DK.
Effectiveness and safety of short vs. long duration of antibiotic therapy for acute bacterial sinusitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Feb;67(2):161-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03306.x. Epub 2008 Sep 19.
Abstract/Text
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: Treatment guidelines generally support that a 10-14-day antibiotic regimen should be administered to uncomplicated acute bacterial sinusitis patients. However, the level of evidence for such a recommendation is rather weak. Treatment of such duration may have disadvantages compared with a shorter duration but equally effective regimen, including the promotion of bacterial drug resistance, poorest patient compliance, higher toxicity, and a greater overall economic burden.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that short-course antibiotic treatment has similar effectiveness to longer-course treatment for patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial sinusitis, when treatment is warranted. However, we should underscore the importance of the clinician's own assessment, so that antimicrobial therapy should not inappropriately be curtailed in a patient not adequately responding to the regimen administered. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of short-course antibiotic treatment for acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) compared with longer duration treatment. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), identified by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included RCTs that compared short-course (up to 7 days) vs. long-course therapy (> or =2 days longer than short-course), with the same antimicrobial agent, in the same daily dosage, for patients with ABS. Twelve RCTs (10 double-blinded) involving adult patients with radiologically confirmed ABS were included. There was no difference in the comparison of short-course (3-7 days) with long-course treatment (6-10 days) regarding clinical success [12 RCTs, 4430 patients, fixed effect model (FEM), odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81, 1.12]; microbiological efficacy; relapses; adverse events (10 RCTs, 4172 patients, random effects model, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71, 1.09); or withdrawals due to adverse events. In the sensitivity analysis comparing 5- vs. 10-day regimens, clinical success was similar, although adverse events were fewer with short-course treatment (5 RCTs, 2151 patients, FEM, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63, 0.98). Although antibiotics for acute sinusitis should be reserved for select patients with substantial probability of bacterial disease, accurate clinical diagnosis is often difficult to attain. Short-course antibiotic treatment had comparable effectiveness to a longer course of therapy for ABS. Shortened treatment, particularly for patients without severe disease and complicating factors, might lead to fewer adverse events, better patient compliance, lower rates of resistance development and fewer costs.
Albu S, Tomescu E, Bassam S, Merca Z.
Intracranial complications of sinusitis.
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 2001;55(4):265-72.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to discuss the presenting signs and symptoms important for the early diagnosis and to review the medical and surgical management of patients presenting with intracranial complications of sinusitis.
METHODS: Retrospective review of the medical records of all patients admitted with intracranial infections between 1990 and 1999 at the Department of Otolaryngology, Department of Neurosurgery and Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Cluj, Romania.
RESULTS: Sixteen patients had 23 intracranial complications of sinusitis. These were meningitis (6 cases), frontal lobe abscess (6 cases), epidural abscess (5 cases), subdural abscess (4 cases), and cavernous sinus thrombophlebitis (2 cases). In almost all patients, early symptoms included headache and fever. Clinical diagnosis was confirmed by imaging. Management of these infections included intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics, appropriate neurosurgical and sinus drainage. Among these patients, there was one death and 4 patients developed significant neurologic sequelae. Poor prognosis was associated with the presence of subdural abscess and a prolonged time interval between the onset of symptoms and the beginning of treatment.
CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis of intracranial complication of sinusitis can reduce morbidity and mortality associated with these complications.
Jones NS, Walker JL, Bassi S, Jones T, Punt J.
The intracranial complications of rhinosinusitis: can they be prevented?
Laryngoscope. 2002 Jan;112(1):59-63. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200201000-00011.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Reference textbooks on the intracranial complications of rhinosinusitis imply that many of the intracranial complications of rhinosinusitis can be prevented. We sought to examine whether or not this is true.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series.
METHODS: The study included 47 consecutive patients presenting with intracranial complications secondary to rhinosinusitis between 1992 to 1999 with a mean follow-up of 5 years and 1 month.
RESULTS: The most common presenting symptoms of intracranial involvement were an altered mental state, headache, fever, seizure, vomiting, a unilateral weakness or hemiparesis, or a cranial nerve sign. These justify an urgent magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan. The importance of imaging before a lumbar puncture cannot be overemphasized. Of particular note was the finding that 21 patients (45%) presented with a periorbital cellulitis or frontal swelling. Therefore, it does not follow that because a collection of pus presents anteriorly it precludes any intracranial involvement. More than half of our patients (55%) had visited their primary care physician with an upper respiratory tract infection and had been treated appropriately. Once any central symptoms or signs developed, there was little evidence of any significant delay in referral to our unit. Only six patients had a history of nasal disease, three having had recent sinus surgery and three having had nasal polyps. Nine patients had significant long-term morbidity, seven patients had epilepsy, one patient had dysphasia, and one patient had right arm weakness. The single death in our series was associated with a cavernous sinus thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The report emphasizes the need for surgeons to be alert to the diagnosis, particularly in patients with a periorbital abscess or frontal swelling. Sinus surgery has a role in obtaining pus for culture, as well as draining the sinus if it is in continuity with an intracranial collection. Intracranial infections secondary to rhinosinusitis occur sporadically and, although it appears that this cannot be prevented, early recognition and treatment are essential to reduce any subsequent morbidity or mortality.
Berenholz L, Kessler A, Shlomkovitz N, Sarfati S, Segal S.
Superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis: complication of ethmoidal rhinosinusitis.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998 Jan;124(1):95-7. doi: 10.1001/archotol.124.1.95.
Abstract/Text
Ali A, Kurien M, Mathews SS, Mathew J.
Complications of acute infective rhinosinusitis: experience from a developing country.
Singapore Med J. 2005 Oct;46(10):540-4.
Abstract/Text
INTRODUCTION: Complications of acute infective sinusitis are a therapeutic emergency. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical presentation, microbiological pattern, treatment modalities and outcome of patients diagnosed to have acute rhinogenic orbital, intra- and extra-cranial complications from a developing country in Asia.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review from October 1999 to January 2004 was conducted.
RESULTS: Among 247 ENT surgical emergencies documented, 13 patients (5.3 percent) were diagnosed to have acute sinusitis with various complications either as in solitary or multiple forms. Orbital complications were the most common (61.5 percent) followed by acute subdural empyema (23.1 percent) and meningitis (15.2 percent). Subdural empyema was the most common intracranial complication. Staphylococcus was reported to be the most common offending organism (45.5 percent). Majority of the patients (84.6 percent) had surgical drainage of the affected sinuses, 38.5 percent being endoscopic drainage while external approach was done for those with coexisting osteomyelitis (30.8 percent). Two patients had combined approach, and one patient had post-operative facial paresis. There was no mortality in our series.
CONCLUSION: Early detection, aggressive medical and prompt surgical treatment by multidisciplinary approach involving ophthalmological, neurosurgical and rhinological procedures, can successfully treat the complications with a significant reduction in the morbidity and no mortality.
