Ocular and nasal allergy symptom burden in America: the Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys.

Previous nationwide surveys of allergies in the United States have focused on nasal symptoms, but ocular symptoms are also relevant. This study determines the effects of ocular and nasal allergies on patients' lives. Telephone surveys of randomly selected U.S. households (the patient survey) and health care providers (provider survey) were conducted in the United States in 2012. Study participants were 2765 people ≥5 years of age who had ever been diagnosed with nasal or ocular allergies and 500 health care providers in seven specialties. Respondents to the patient survey reported a bimodal seasonal distribution of allergy symptoms, with peaks in March to May and September. Nasal congestion was the most common of the symptoms rated as "extremely bothersome" (39% of respondents), followed by red, itchy eyes (34%; p = 0.84 for difference in extreme bothersomeness of nasal and ocular symptoms). Twenty-nine percent of respondents reported that their or their child's daily life was impacted "a lot" when allergy symptoms were at their worst. Workers rated their mean productivity at 29% lower when allergy symptoms were at their worst (p < 0.001 compared with no symptoms). Providers reported that itchy eyes was the symptom causing most patients to seek medical treatment by pediatricians (73%), ophthalmologist/optometrists (72%), and nurse practitioners or physician assistants (62%), whereas nasal congestion was the symptom causing most patients to seek treatment from otolaryngologists (85%), allergist/immunologists (79%), and family medicine practitioners (64%). Ocular and nasal allergy symptoms substantially affected patients' lives and were comparable in their impact.

Cephalosporin use in treatment of patients with penicillin allergies.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence that supports the use of certain cephalosporins in penicillin-allergic patients. DATA SOURCES: Published articles were identified through Medline and EMBASE (1960-2007) using the search terms penicillin and allergy and cephalosporin and cross-reactivity. Additional sources were identified from the authors' personal collection and the reference bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: The articles found in the search were limited to the English language and screened for relevance. Review articles and republication of results were excluded. A total of 44 articles reported evidence of cross-reactivity between cephalosporins and penicillins in human and animal studies. Additional references provided background and perspective. DATA SYNTHESIS: Physicians may now prescribe certain cephalosporins in patients with a history of a nonserious, non-life-threatening penicillin reaction. Exclusions include type I anaphylaxis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, angioedema, and other potentially life-threatening responses to medication. Recent reports demonstrate that a considerable body of literature describing the cross-reactivity between cephalosporins and penicillin was established based on nonallergic adverse reactions or in vitro studies rather than on clinically relevant immune-mediated reactions. Oral rechallenge and skin testing data support the relationship of the beta-lactam side-chain structures of these drugs as a predictor of cross-reactivity. CONCLUSION: Recent data suggest that the incidence of cross-reactivity among penicillins and cephalosporins is lower than historically reported. Pharmacists should be aware that cephalosporin cross-reactivity in a penicillin-allergic patient is not necessarily a class effect. Dispensing should be evaluated based on the type of allergic manifestations and the drug prescribed.

Significant orbital and intracranial complications from balloon sinus dilation as a stand-alone and powered dissector-assisted procedure.

Chronic rhinosinusitis is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting millions of people in the United States every year. Balloon sinus dilation is a minimally invasive intervention that was introduced as a possible alternative to endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). In select patients, balloon dilation has been advocated as a relatively safe procedure with comparable efficacy to traditional ESS. Over the past 12 months, significant intracranial and intraorbital complications have been observed on five patients who underwent balloon sinus dilation as a stand-alone procedure, as well as what could be termed a power dissector-assisted balloon dilation procedure, obviating the need for a wide sinusotomy or any significant ethmoid surgery, which are typically performed to establish anatomical landmarks before the introduction of power instruments into dependent sinus cavities. Laryngoscope, 2455-2459, 2018.

Oral beta-lactams in the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a well-known complication of viral upper respiratory tract infection and is associated with a significant socioeconomic burden. Difficulties in diagnosis, a substantial spontaneous resolution rate, and growing concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance make the proper management of ABRS quite challenging. Treatment guidelines have been developed, taking into account the major bacterial pathogens, rates of antimicrobial resistance, spontaneous resolution rates, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Optimal choices for initial treatment of ABRS in patients without prior antibacterial exposure include the oral beta-lactam agents amoxicillin/clavulanate, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, and cefuroxime. Clinicians are encouraged to consider the local pathogen distribution and rates of antibacterial resistance in selecting therapy for ABRS.

Patient and physician perspectives on the attributes of nasal allergy medications.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) often requires regular prophylactic use of allergy medications for the effective long-term management of nasal symptoms. However, patient adherence to AR treatment is frequently poor. The Allergies in America survey of nasal allergy sufferers assessed 2500 adults diagnosed with AR. Four hundred healthcare professionals also participated in this survey. Participants were interviewed about their perceptions of the effectiveness and tolerability of AR medications and the relationship of these parameters to patient satisfaction with therapy. Only 15% of nasal allergy sufferers reported that their intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) provided complete symptom relief, and 48% of patients indicated that their INCS did not provide 24-hour symptom relief. Healthcare professionals agreed that intranasal corticosteroids do not provide complete 24-hour symptom relief. The most commonly reported adverse effects of all nasal allergy medications were a drying feeling (47%), dripping down the throat (41%), drowsiness (37%), bad taste (32%), burning (17%), and headaches (16%). Many patients indicated that these adverse effects were moderately or extremely bothersome. Thirty-two percent and 25% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment because their nasal allergy medications did not provide 24-hour symptom relief or were associated with bothersome adverse effects. Patients and healthcare professionals do not believe that INCSs provide complete 24-hour symptom relief. In general, allergy medications also are perceived as conferring unpleasant adverse effects. Lack of efficacy and bothersome adverse effects contribute to lack of satisfaction with treatment and treatment discontinuation in patients with AR.

Intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) have been established as the first-line treatment of moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR). Compared with other monotherapies, INCSs are most effective at controlling underlying allergic inflammation and providing symptom relief. Although currently available INCSs show comparable efficacy in controlling nasal symptoms of AR, onset and duration of action are thought to be somewhat variable among the INCSs. The low frequency of side effects suggests that, at recommended doses, INCSs are safe for the treatment of AR. However, concerns remain regarding the long-term systemic side effects associated with INCS therapy. Recent clinical studies have indicated that ciclesonide provides effective relief from nasal symptoms of AR and may have a rapid onset of action. Moreover, the results of two clinical trials, including a 52-week study, have suggested that intranasal ciclesonide does not cause cortisol suppression. Furthermore, intranasal ciclesonide does not have an additive effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function when administered in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), indicating that intranasal ciclesonide can be used in combination with an ICS in patients with asthma and comorbid AR. Therefore, intranasal ciclesonide appears to provide an additional treatment option for patients with AR.

Endoscopically directed middle meatal cultures versus maxillary sinus taps in acute bacterial maxillary rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to verify the correlation of endoscopically directed middle meatal (EDMM) cultures with maxillary sinus tap and culture (MST) in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of the previous literature, unpublished data, and a prospective trial supported by the Sinus & Allergy Health Partnership. EDMM and MST cultures were obtained and their results compared. Inclusion for both the unpublished and prospective trial as well as prior published literature in the meta-analysis required the studies to compare EDMM versus MST in the acute setting of bacterial rhinosinusitis with both symptomatic and radiologic evidence of ABRS. RESULTS: Three articles and 1 national presentation were identified for inclusion. Additional data from unpublished studies and the prospective trial were combined. The pooled data consisted of 126 patients with 131 culture pairs. For known pathogenic bacteria for ABRS and in comparison to MST, EDMM had a sensitivity of 80.9%, a specificity of 90.5%, a positive predictive value of 82.6%, a negative predictive value of 89.4%, and an overall accuracy of 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 81.3%-92.8%); 70.5% (12/17) of false positive culture pairs were of known pathogens for ABRS that would not be expected to be contaminants. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-analysis shows that EDMM is a highly sensitive and accurate culture method for acute ABRS and may be more sensitive than MST given the presence of pathogenic bacteria not found on antral lavage. EDMM is a viable, and possibly preferred, culture method for determining antimicrobial efficacy and bacterial resistance patterns. EBM RATING: A-1a.

Rhinosinusitis: Developing guidance for clinical trials.

The Rhinosinusitis Initiative was developed by 5 national societies. The current guidance document is an expansion of the 2004 publication, "Rhinosinusitis: Establishing definitions for clinical research and patient care" and provides templates for clinical trials in antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and symptom-relieving therapies for the following: (1) acute presumed bacterial rhinosinusitis, (2) chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) without nasal polyps, (3) CRS with nasal polyps, and (4) classic allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. In addition to the templates for clinical trials and proposed study designs, the Rhinosinusitis Initiative has developed 6 appendices, which address (1) health outcomes, (2) nasal endoscopy and staging of CRS, (3) radiologic imaging, (4) microbiology, (5) laboratory measures, and (6) biostatistical methods.

Value of short-course antimicrobial therapy in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.

Traditional approaches to antimicrobial management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) focus on courses of therapy of at least 10 days duration. The rationale for this length of therapy originated from studies in tonsillopharyngitis. Short-course antibiotic therapy for ABRS with 3-5 days of azithromycin has proved equally effective. Potential added benefits of short-course therapy include improved compliance, fewer adverse events as well as reduced risk of treatment failure, bacterial resistance and cost. Single-dose therapy is now possible with a novel microsphere formulation of azithromycin, which permits administration of a higher 2.0 g oral dose. This has proved as effective and well tolerated as 10 days levofioxacin 500 mg/day in patients with uncomplicated ABRS. High single-dose therapy has the potential to maximize adherence to prescribed therapy and thus to help in the battle to control rising antibiotic resistance among respiratory pathogens.

The Cooperative Outcomes Group for ENT: a multicenter prospective cohort study on the effectiveness of medical and surgical treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter study; 31 otolaryngologists enrolled 276 adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis; patients completed surveys at 3-month intervals, and physicians provided clinical and treatment data. The primary outcome measure was the Chronic Sinusitis Survey-Duration (CSS-D). RESULTS: One hundred seventeen adult patients completed 12-month follow-up. Most patients reported sinus symptoms lasting longer than 3 years (74%). Patients showed significant improvement (group P < 0.0001) in the CSS-D score at each follow-up interval. Baseline CSS-D ( P < 0.0001), surgical intervention ( P < 0.003), and Lund-McKay score ( P < 0.04) were predictive of clinical success in regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred to an otolaryngologist have a severe sinus illness. Treatment by an otolaryngologist was associated with significant improvement in sinus-related symptoms. SIGNIFICANCE: The study demonstrated the feasibility of multicenter outcome studies in chronic rhinosinusitis and generated testable hypotheses for future investigation. EBM RATING: C.

The Cooperative Outcomes Group for ENT: a multicenter prospective cohort study on the outcomes of tympanostomy tubes for children with otitis media.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes for patients with otitis media were assessed in this prospective, multicenter study. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Thirty-one otolaryngologists enrolled 272 pediatric patients with otitis media; caregivers completed surveys at 3-month intervals, and clinical and treatment data was also collected. The Otitis Media 6 (OM-6) was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-seven patients (mean age 2.0 years) completed 3-month follow-up. One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent tympanostomy tube placement. Large improvements in disease-specific quality of life (QOL) were seen up to 9 months of follow-up. Baseline OM-6 score was the best predictor of clinical success in regression modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred to an otolaryngologist for treatment of otitis media see large improvements in disease-specific QOL regardless of treatment rendered. SIGNIFICANCE: The study demonstrates the feasibility of multicenter outcomes studies and confirms appropriate triage of patients with otitis media into surgical versus medical interventions. EBM RATING: C.

Esophageal coin with an unusual radiographic appearance.

Esophageal coins are typically seen as radiopaque disks on anteroposterior chest radiographs. This radiographic finding is generally considered classic for identifying "swallowed" coins as being in the esophagus. We report the case of an 11-year-old girl with an esophageal coin seen end-on on an anteroposterior chest radiograph and as a disk consistent with a coin in the lateral view. These findings are typically associated with coin aspiration. Clinicians should be wary of making the diagnosis of foreign body aspiration of coins by relying on single-view radiographic findings alone. When clinically reasonable, we suggest additional imaging to help further localize swallowed coins.

Rational use of antibiotics to treat respiratory tract infections.

OBJECTIVES: To foster the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents for respiratory tract infections and to review factors that should help achieve this objective. STUDY DESIGN: Review of evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for proper antibiotic drug use for respiratory tract infections. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic drug overuse and inappropriate antibiotic drug selection are associated with increased drug resistance among respiratory pathogens (most notably, Streptococcus pneumoniae), possible progression to chronic disease, and increased treatment costs. Awareness of clinical manifestations that help differentiate viral from bacterial infection and the use of guidelines can promote the appropriate management of respiratory tract infections. Community-acquired pneumonia, acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, and selected cases of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (50%) warrant antimicrobial therapy, whereas otitis media with effusion, acute bronchitis, and most rhinosinusitis are viral and do not require antibiotic therapy.

Pharmacological treatments for rhinosinusitis.

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a well-recognised and common problem confronting many primary care physicians but the abuse of antibiotic therapy for viral aetiologies of ABRS has lead to widespread bacterial resistance. The once easily-eradicated pathogens have developed many mechanisms to resist antimicrobial therapies. The most common pathogens Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis are still found in cultures of sinus cavities but Staphylococcus and possibly some anaerobes play an important role in the development of the chronic stage of rhinosinusitis. The choice of antibiotic therapy for both ABRS and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are reviewed, along with considerations for ancillary therapy. Note is made of the role of chemical mediators in the inflammatory stage possible strategies to reduce this problem. Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis results from a hypersensitivity reaction to demetiaceous fungi. Cure of the effects of rhinosinusitis depends on the establishment of a healthy sinus cycle.

Efficacy and safety of oral telithromycin once daily for 5 days versus moxifloxacin once daily for 10 days in the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and bacteriologic efficacy and safety of short-duration treatment with telithromycin given for 5 days with moxifloxacin given for 10 days in adults with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter study, adult patients (N = 349) with ABRS were randomized to oral telithromycin (800 mg once daily for 5 days) or to oral moxifloxacin (400 mg once daily for 10 days) and followed for 31 to 36 days. Clinical outcome was determined by the investigator at the posttherapy/test of cure (TOC) visit. Bacteriologic outcome was determined by comparing cultures taken at the pretreatment visit with cultures obtained at the posttherapy/TOC visit. The primary objective was to demonstrate equivalence of clinical cure rates in the per-protocol population between treatment groups at the posttherapy/TOC visit. RESULTS: Clinical success at TOC (primary endpoint) was achieved in 87.4% of patients in the telithromycin group compared with 86.9% for moxifloxacin (per-protocol patients; 0.5% difference between treatment groups; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1, 9.2; P = 0.8930). The bacteriologic success rates were 94.1% and 93.9%, respectively (0.2% difference between treatment groups; 95% CI, -14.2, 14.5; P = 0.9734). Overall treatment-emergent adverse events for both drugs (mostly gastrointestinal) were mild to moderate in intensity. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical and bacteriologic efficacy of telithromycin 800 mg once daily for 5 days was equivalent to that of moxifloxacin 400 mg once daily for 10 days, establishing telithromycin as an important treatment option for ABRS.

Techniques of intranasal steroid use.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of topical intranasal steroids (INS) sprays for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis may be limited by lack of instruction in the optimal spray technique. To determine whether the technique used affects the efficacy and safety of the product, this review of evidence had the goal of identifying and establishing a preferred method of applying INS sprays. STUDY DESIGN: A MEDLINE search of pertinent literature on 7 INS and 1 intranasal antihistamine spray preparations conducted with the use of appropriate search terms, yielded an initial 121 articles, 29 of which were identified as appropriate for review and grading for quality of evidence. RESULTS: The analysis provided no definitive evidence regarding how best to instruct patients to use INS or antihistamine spray devices. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a lack of clear evidence regarding instructions to maximize efficacy and safety of these drugs, the panel recommended a 7-step standard technique.

Cost-effective pharmacotherapy for inhalant allergic rhinitis.

The otolaryngologist is one of the decision leaders for patients who seek to learn more about their problems of respiratory allergy. Although these patients do not have a life-threatening illness, the reduction of quality of life and performance can significantly restrict their overall sense of well being. Patients with allergic rhinitis desire the relief of the bothersome problems without other side effects. Second-generation antihistamines were introduced to reduce the significant impairment brought on by the sedation of the first-generation products. Most physicians prescribe the intranasal corticosteroids as the prescription drug of first choice for most patients with chronic allergic rhinitis. Second-generation H1 receptor antagonists are better for the patient than the first-generation drugs because of the reduced side-effect profile and improved tolerance. Compliance factors certainly need to be addressed with medications that need more than once-daily dosing. Patients with only sporadic problems in season or on limited exposure are best treated with oral antihistamines, topical cromolyn, and short-term decongestant therapy.

Skin prick/puncture testing in North America: a call for standards and consistency.

BACKGROUND: Skin prick/puncture testing (SPT) is widely accepted as a safe, dependable, convenient, and cost-effective procedure to detect allergen-specific IgE sensitivity. It is, however, prone to influence by a variety of factors that may significantly alter test outcomes, affect the accuracy of diagnosis, and the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy regimens. Proficiency in SPT administration is a key variable that can be routinely measured and documented to improve the predictive value of allergy skin testing. METHODS: Literature surveys were conducted to determine the adherence to repeated calls for development and implementation of proficiency testing standards in the 1990's, the mid-2000's and the 2008 allergy diagnostics practice parameters. RESULTS: Authors publishing clinical research in peer-reviewed journals and conducting workshops at annual scientific meetings have recommended proficiency testing based primarily on its potential to reduce variability, minimize confounding test results, and promote more effective immunotherapeutic treatments. Very few publications of clinical studies, however, appear to report proficiency testing data for SPT performance. Allergen immunotherapy recommendations are updated periodically by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (JCAAI). CONCLUSIONS: Despite consensus that all staff who perform SPT should meet basic quality assurance standards that demonstrate their SPT proficiency, the gap between recommendations and daily practice persists. By embracing standards, the accuracy of SPT and allergy diagnosis can be optimized, ultimately benefiting patients with allergic disease.

The Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) survey: provider practices and beliefs about allergen immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The practices and beliefs of the provider specialties that treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) may vary. METHODS: A telephone survey of 500 randomly selected health care practitioners in 7 specialties, conducted in 2012. RESULTS: AIT was provided as a subcutaneous injection (SCIT) by 91% of allergist/immunologists, 54% of otolaryngologists, and 18% to 24% of other specialties. Otolaryngologists were the most frequent providers of sublingual drops of AIT (SLIT; 33%), compared to 2% to 10% of other specialties. AIT was recommended for adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis by 100% of allergist/immunologists vs 62% to 84% of the other specialties (p < 0.001). The primary reason for recommending AIT for adults (52%) or children (46%) was that other therapies did not work. Between 48% (nurse practitioners/physician assistants) and 93% (allergist/immunologists) of practitioners always or often decreased symptomatic medications over the course of AIT treatment. Most practitioners in all specialties (82-100%) thought that AIT was appropriate for patients with severe allergy symptoms. Significantly more allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists than other specialists thought AIT was appropriate for mild allergy symptoms (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively, vs other specialties). Significantly more allergist/immunologists than other specialists thought that AIT was more effective than symptomatic medications (p < 0.001), could reduce the further development of allergies (p = 0.03), and could prevent the development of asthma. CONCLUSION: SCIT was more frequently provided than SLIT by all the specialties. Otolaryngologists were the most likely to offer SLIT, while very few allergist/immunologists offered SLIT. Allergist/immunologists differed from other specialties in some beliefs about the effectiveness of AIT.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Headache.

Most patients presenting with uncomplicated, nontraumatic, primary headache do not require imaging. When history, physical, or neurologic examination elicits "red flags" or critical features of the headache, then further investigation with imaging may be warranted to exclude a secondary cause. Imaging procedures may be diagnostically useful for patients with headaches that are: associated with trauma; new, worse, or abrupt onset; thunderclap; radiating to the neck; due to trigeminal autonomic cephalgia; persistent and positional; and temporal in older individuals. Pregnant patients, immunocompromised individuals, cancer patients, and patients with papilledema or systemic illnesses, including hypercoagulable disorders may benefit from imaging. Unlike most headaches, those associated with cough, exertion, or sexual activity usually require neuroimaging with MRI of the brain with and without contrast to exclude potentially underlying pathology before a primary headache syndrome is diagnosed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.