Prognosis and prediction of antibiotic benefit in adults with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of antibiotics for adults with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) showed a marginal overall effect of antibiotics, but was unable to identify patients that are most likely to benefit from antibiotics when applying conventional (i.e. univariable or one-variable-at-a-time) subgroup analysis. We updated the systematic review and investigated whether multivariable prediction of patient-level prognosis and antibiotic treatment effect may lead to more tailored treatment assignment in adults presenting to primary care with ARS. METHODS: An IPD-MA of nine double-blind placebo-controlled trials of antibiotic treatment (n=2539) was conducted, with the probability of being cured at 8-15 days as the primary outcome. A logistic mixed effects model was developed to predict the probability of being cured based on demographic characteristics, signs and symptoms, and antibiotic treatment assignment. Predictive performance was quantified based on internal-external cross-validation in terms of calibration and discrimination performance, overall model fit, and the accuracy of individual predictions. RESULTS: Results indicate that the prognosis with respect to risk of cure could not be reliably predicted (c-statistic 0.58 and Brier score 0.24). Similarly, patient-level treatment effect predictions did not reliably distinguish between those that did and did not benefit from antibiotics (c-for-benefit 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, multivariable prediction based on patient demographics and common signs and symptoms did not reliably predict the patient-level probability of cure and antibiotic effect in this IPD-MA. Therefore, these characteristics cannot be expected to reliably distinguish those that do and do not benefit from antibiotics in adults presenting to primary care with ARS.

General practitioners' perspectives on discontinuation of long-term antidepressants in nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of antidepressant drugs (AD), much longer than recommended by guidelines, in nursing homes (NH) is common. NH home residents may have a relatively higher risk of adverse events. Moreover, in an NH setting nursing staff and relatives are intensively involved in the decision-making process. In many countries, General Practitioners' (GPs) provide care for residents in NHs. Little is known about GPs' perspectives on discontinuation of long-term AD in NH residents. OBJECTIVES: To explore GPs' views of discontinuing long-term AD in NH residents. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study, with semi-structured interviews, was conducted with a purposive sample of 20 Belgian GPs. Interviews, conducted over six months in 2019, were analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were conducted until data saturation. The first theme, 'reluctance to rock the boat: not worth taking the risk', describes that GPs perceive discontinuation as an unpredictable risk without clear benefits. GPs' main concern was the risk of destabilising the fragile balance in an older patient. Second, 'it takes at least three to tango', captures the unspoken alliance between GPs, nursing staff and relatives and suggests that agreement of at least these three partners is required. The third, 'Opening the door: triggers to discontinue', points to severe health problems and dementia as strong facilitators for discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Discontinuation of long-term AD in NHs is a complex process for GPs. More evidence and attention to the role nursing staff and relatives play are needed to better guide the discontinuation of AD in older NH patients.

Identifying adults with acute rhinosinusitis in primary care that benefit most from antibiotics: protocol of an individual patient data meta-analysis using multivariable risk prediction modelling.

INTRODUCTION: Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is a prime reason for doctor visits and among the conditions with highest antibiotic overprescribing rates in adults. To reduce inappropriate prescribing, we aim to predict the absolute benefit of antibiotic treatment for individual adult patients with ARS by applying multivariable risk prediction methods to individual patient data (IPD) of multiple randomised placebo-controlled trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an update and re-analysis of a 2008 IPD meta-analysis on antibiotics for adults with clinically diagnosed ARS. First, the reference list of the 2018 Cochrane review on antibiotics for ARS will be reviewed for relevant studies published since 2008. Next, the systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase of the Cochrane review will be updated to 1 September 2020. Methodological quality of eligible studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The primary outcome is cure at 8-15 days. Regression-based methods will be used to model the risk of being cured based on relevant predictors and treatment, while accounting for clustering. Such model allows for risk predictions as a function of treatment and individual patient characteristics and hence gives insight into individualised absolute benefit. Candidate predictors will be based on literature, clinical reasoning and availability. Calibration and discrimination will be evaluated to assess model performance. Resampling techniques will be used to assess internal validation. In addition, internal-external cross-validation procedures will be used to inform on between-study differences and estimate out-of-sample model performance. Secondarily, we will study possible heterogeneity of treatment effect as a function of outcome risk. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: In this study, no identifiable patient data will be used. As such, the Medical Research Involving Humans Subject Act (WMO) does not apply and official ethical approval is not required. Results will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220108.

Antihistamines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is an upper respiratory tract infection, most commonly caused by a rhinovirus. It affects people of all age groups and although in most cases it is self limiting, the common cold still causes significant morbidity. Antihistamines are commonly offered over the counter to relieve symptoms for patients affected by the common cold, however there is not much evidence of their efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antihistamines on the common cold. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to July week 4, 2015), EMBASE (2010 to August 2015), CINAHL (1981 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015) and Biosis Previews (1985 to August 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using antihistamines as monotherapy for the common cold. We excluded any studies with combination therapy or using antihistamines in patients with an allergic component in their illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs, which were reported in 17 publications (one publication reports on two trials) with 4342 participants (of which 212 were children) suffering from the common cold, both naturally occurring and experimentally induced. The interventions consisted of an antihistamine as monotherapy compared with placebo. In adults there was a short-term beneficial effect of antihistamines on severity of overall symptoms: on day one or two of treatment 45% had a beneficial effect with antihistamines versus 38% with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92). However, there was no difference between antihistamines and placebo in the mid term (three to four days) to long term (six to 10 days). When evaluating individual symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, there was some beneficial effect of the sedating antihistamines compared to placebo (e.g. rhinorrhoea on day three: mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06 on a four- or five-point severity scale; sneezing on day three: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.20 on a four-point severity scale), but this effect is clinically non-significant. Adverse events such as sedation were more commonly reported with sedating antihistamines although the differences were not statistically significant. Only two trials included children and the results were conflicting. The majority of the trials had a low risk of bias although some lacked sufficient trial quality information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antihistamines have a limited short-term (days one and two of treatment) beneficial effect on severity of overall symptoms but not in the mid to long term. There is no clinically significant effect on nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea or sneezing. Although side effects are more common with sedating antihistamines, the difference is not statistically significant. There is no evidence of effectiveness of antihistamines in children.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing relapse; and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 10, MEDLINE (1966 to October week 2, 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012) and Web of Science (2010 to October 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, complications, adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials (5352 participants) were included; 16 compared with penicillin (six with cephalosporins, six with macrolides, three with carbacephem and one with sulfonamides), one trial compared clindamycin and ampicillin. Randomisation reporting, allocation concealment and blinding were poor.There was no difference in symptom resolution between cephalosporins and penicillin (intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; N = 5; n = 2018; odds ratio for absence of resolution of symptoms (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12). Clinical relapse was lower with cephalosporins (N = 4; n = 1386; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; overall number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50), but found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin. Carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment (N = 3; n = 795; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14), but only in children (N = 2; n = 233; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8.3). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides (N = 1, n = 489; OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show clinically meaningful differences between antibiotics for GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be recommended as first choice.

Withdrawal versus continuation of chronic antipsychotic drugs for behavioural and psychological symptoms in older people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic agents are often used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia, although the literature is sceptical about their long-term use for this indication. Their effectiveness is limited and there is concern about adverse effects, including higher mortality with long-term use. When behavioural strategies have failed and drug therapy is instituted, regular attempts to withdraw these drugs are recommended. Physicians, nurses and families of older people with dementia are often reluctant to try to stop antipsychotics, fearing deterioration of NPS. Strategies to reduce antipsychotic use have been proposed, but a systematic review of interventions aimed at withdrawal of antipsychotic agents in older people with dementia has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether withdrawal of antipsychotic agents is successful in older people with dementia in community or nursing home settings, to list the different strategies for withdrawal of antipsychotic agents in older people with dementia and NPS, and to measure the effects of withdrawal of antipsychotic agents on behaviour. SEARCH METHODS: ALOIS, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, clinical trials registries and grey literature sources were searched on 23 November 2012. The search included the following terms: antipsychotic* or neuroleptic* or phenothiazines or butyrophenones or risperidone or olanzapine or haloperidol or prothipendyl or methotrimeprazine or clopenthixol or flupenthixol or clothiapine or metylperon or droperidol or pipamperone or benperidol or bromperidol or fluspirilene or pimozide or penfluridol or sulpiride or veralipride or levosulpiride or sultopride or aripiprazole or clozapine or quetiapine or thioridazine combined wither terms such as discontinu* or withdraw* or cessat* or reduce* or reducing or reduct* or taper* or stop*.ALOIS contains records from all major healthcare databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many clinical trials registries and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials comparing an antipsychotic withdrawal strategy to continuation of antipsychotics in people with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, rated their risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with 606 randomised participants. Seven trials were conducted in nursing homes, one trial in an outpatient setting and one in both settings. In these trials, different types of antipsychotics prescribed at different doses were withdrawn. Both abrupt and gradual withdrawal schedules were used. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low regarding blinding and outcome reporting and unclear for randomisation procedures and recruitment of participants.There was a wide variety of outcome measures. Our primary efficacy outcomes were success of withdrawal (i.e. remaining in study off antipsychotics) and NPS. Eight of nine trials reported no overall significant difference between groups on the primary outcomes, although in one pilot study of people with psychosis and agitation that had responded to haloperidol, time to relapse was significantly shorter in the discontinuation group (Chi(2) = 4.1, P value = 0.04). The ninth trial included people with psychosis or agitation who had responded well to risperidone therapy for four to eight months and reported that discontinuation led to an increased risk of relapse, that is, increase in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-core score of 30% or greater (P value = 0.004, hazard ratio (HR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 3.45 at four months). The only outcome that could be pooled was the full NPI-score, used in two studies. For this outcome there was no significant difference between people withdrawn from and those continuing on antipsychotics at three months (mean difference (MD) -1.49, 95% CI -5.39 to 2.40). These two studies reported subgroup analyses according to baseline NPI-score (14 or less versus > 14). In one study, those with milder symptoms at baseline were significantly less agitated at three months in the discontinuation group (NPI-agitation, Mann-Whitney U test z = 2.4, P value = 0.018). In both studies, there was evidence of significant behavioural deterioration in people with more severe baseline NPS who were withdrawn from antipsychotics (Chi(2) = 6.8; P value = 0.009 for the marked symptom score in one study).Individual studies did not report significant differences between groups on any other outcome except one trial that found a significant difference in a measure of verbal fluency, favouring discontinuation. Most trials lacked power to detect clinically important differences between groups.Adverse events were not systematically assessed. In one trial there was a non-significant increase in mortality in people who continued antipsychotic treatment (5% to 8% greater than placebo, depending on the population analysed, measured at 12 months). This trend became significant three years after randomisation, but due to dropout and uncertainty about the use of antipsychotics in this follow-up period this result should be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that many older people with Alzheimer's dementia and NPS can be withdrawn from chronic antipsychotic medication without detrimental effects on their behaviour. It remains uncertain whether withdrawal is beneficial for cognition or psychomotor status, but the results of this review suggest that discontinuation programmes could be incorporated into routine practice. However, two studies of people whose agitation or psychosis had previously responded well to antipsychotic treatment found an increased risk of relapse or shorter time to relapse after discontinuation. Two other studies suggest that people with more severe NPS at baseline could benefit from continuing their antipsychotic medication. In these people, withdrawal might not be recommended.

Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: In primary care settings, the diagnosis of rhinosinusitis is generally based on clinical signs and symptoms. Technical investigations are not routinely performed, nor recommended. Individual trials show a trend in favour of antibiotics, but the balance of benefit versus harm is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of antibiotics in adults with clinically diagnosed rhinosinusitis in primary care settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2012), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February week 4, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1974 to February 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics versus placebo in participants with rhinosinusitis-like signs or symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials involving 2450 participants. Overall, the risk of bias in these studies was low. Irrespective of the treatment group, 47% of participants were cured after one week and 71% after 14 days. Antibiotics can shorten the time to cure, but only five more participants per 100 will cure faster at any time point between 7 and 14 days if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB)) 18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10 to 115, I(2) statistic 0%, eight trials). Purulent secretion resolves faster with antibiotics (odds ratio (OR) 1.58 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.22)), (NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 51, I(2) statistic 0%, three trials). However, 27% of the participants who received antibiotics and 15% of those who received placebo experienced adverse events (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.77) (number needed to treat to harm (NNTH)) 8 (95% CI 6 to 13, I(2) statistic 13%, seven trials). More participants in the placebo group needed to start antibiotic therapy because of an abnormal course of rhinosinusitis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66), NNTH 20 (95% CI 14 to 35, I(2) statistic 0%, eight trials). Only one disease-related complication (brain abscess) occurred in a patient treated with antibiotics. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The potential benefit of antibiotics in the treatment of clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis needs to be seen in the context of a high prevalence of adverse events. Taking into account antibiotic resistance and the very low incidence of serious complications, we conclude that there is no place for antibiotics for the patient with clinically diagnosed, uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. This review cannot make recommendations for children, patients with a suppressed immune system and patients with severe disease, as these populations were not included in the available trials.

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter (OTC) in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence of effectiveness is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations in reducing the duration and alleviating the symptoms of the common cold in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLDMEDLINE (1953 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1990 to December 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics) or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and summarised data on general recovery, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, cough and side effects. We categorised the trials according to the active ingredients. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials (5117 participants) of common cold treatments. Fourteen trials studied antihistamine-decongestant combinations; two antihistamine-analgesic; six analgesic-decongestant; and five antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations. In 21 trials the control intervention was placebo and in six trials an active substance. Reporting of methods in most trials was poor and there were large differences in design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Pooling was only possible for a limited number of studies and outcomes.Antihistamine-decongestant: 12 trials. Eight trials report on global effectiveness, six could be pooled; n = 309 on active treatment, n = 312 placebo) the odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.50); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was four (95% CI 3 to 5.6). On the final evaluation day 41% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 66% on active treatment. Of the two trials that were not included in the pooling, one showed some global effect, the other showed no effect.Antihistamine-analgesic: three trials. Two reported on global effectiveness, data from one study was presented. (n = 290 on active treatment, n = 292 ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46) and the NNTB was 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). After six days of treatment 43% were cured in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group. The second study also showed an effect in favour of active treatment.Analgesic-decongestant: six trials. One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% benefited compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52).Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: Five trials. Four trials reported on global effectiveness, two could be pooled: global effect reported (less than one severity point on a four or five-point scale) with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%); the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67) and the NNTB was 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). Two other trials found no beneficial effect. Two other studies did not show any effect.Two studies with antihistamine-decongestant (113 children) could not be pooled. There was no significant effect of the active treatment.Adverse effects: the combination of antihistamine-decongestant had more adverse effects than the control intervention but the difference was not significant: 157/810 (19%) versus 60/477 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.21). Analgesic-decongestant combinations had significantly more adverse effects than control (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.37); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 14. None of the other two combinations caused significantly more adverse effects. Antihistamine-analgesic: 11/90 with combination suffered one or more adverse effects (12%) versus 9/91 (10%) with control (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.23). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: in one study 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups but numbers were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children.

Quality of care: the need for medical, contextual and policy evidence in primary care.

The increasing availability of medical evidence in clinical practice was expected to improve the quality of care. However, this has not been realized. A possible explanation is that quality of care is a complex concept and needs a wider scope. Starting from the Donabedian triangle of structure, process and outcome, a framework for the analysis of quality of care is presented. The need for three types of evidence is identified and discussed: medical, contextual and policy evidence. Although the body of medical evidence is increasing, it has major flaws and gaps hampering its applicability in primary care. There is also a need to focus on the context of the medical encounter, which has been shown to influence outcome, but is still not well researched. Finally, evidence on costs, cost utility and equity needs to be considered. Taking these different aspects of evidence into account, an agenda for research in primary care is set. The analytical framework may provide new insights in the quest for improving quality of health care.

Does amoxicillin improve outcomes in patients with purulent rhinorrhea? A pragmatic randomized double-blind controlled trial in family practice.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of amoxicillin vs placebo in patients with an acute upper respiratory tract infection and purulent rhinorrhea. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. POPULATION: The 416 patients included from 69 family practices were 12 years or older, presenting with acute upper respiratory complaints, and having a history of purulent rhinorrhea and no signs of complications of sinusitis. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Therapy success (disappearance of symptoms that most greatly affected the patient's health) at day 10 and duration of general illness, pain, and purulent rhinorrhea. RESULTS: Therapy was successful in 35% of patients with amoxicillin and in 29% of patients with placebo (relative risk [RR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.42). There was no effect on duration of general illness or pain. Duration of purulent rhinorrhea was shortened by amoxicillin (9 days vs 14 for clearing of purulent rhinorrhea in 75% of patients; P =.007). Diarrhea was more frequent with amoxicillin (29% vs 19%, RR 1.28, 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). No complications were reported. One patient (0.5%) receiving amoxicillin and 7 (3.4%) receiving placebo discontinued trial therapy because of exacerbation of symptoms (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04-1.56, P =.07). All 8 patients recovered with antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Amoxicillin has a beneficial effect on purulent rhinorrhea caused by an acute infection of the nose or sinuses but not on general recovery. The practical implication is that all such patients, whatever the suspected diagnosis, can be safely treated with symptomatic therapy and instructed to return if symptoms worsen.