Herbal Medicines for Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyze and compare the effects of herbal medicines (HMs) for treating different forms of rhinosinusitis. RECENT FINDINGS: Forty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 18 HMs in six different rhinosinusitis populations were included in the network meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. For the common cold, Pelargonium sidoides offered the most beneficial effect on symptom improvement (moderate certainty of evidence). For acute post-viral rhinosinusitis, Cineole and Pelargonium sidoides were the most effective treatments for controlling symptoms (moderate certainty), while Spicae aetheroleum was most effective for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement (moderate certainty). For chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), Origanum vulgare was the most beneficial treatment for improving symptoms and HRQoL (low certainty). Evidence of HMs for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and unclassified chronic rhinosinusitis was restricted to a limited number of studies. Adverse events should be of concern in some HMs, such as Spicae aetheroleum or Mytorl. Several HMs improved patient-important outcomes, above minimal clinically important differences, in treating common cold, acute post-viral rhinosinusitis, and CRSsNP. Further studies with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are warranted to support the current evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022328265 May 10, 2022.

Effects of large volume, isotonic nasal saline irrigation for acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nasal saline irrigation (large volume, positive pressure isotonic saline) in addition to standard treatment in patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). METHODS: This parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital. The adult patients with ARS (age ≥18 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. The irrigation group received 0.9% saline irrigation twice daily, using a 250-ml squeeze bottle, in addition to standard treatment. The no-irrigation group received standard treatment only. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1 week, and 2 weeks. The quality of life, rhinologic subscore, symptom score, endoscopy score, and cure rate were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (30: irrigation, 31: no-irrigation) were enrolled. There were 17 males and 44 females. The mean age was 41.06 years. Although both groups showed improvements, the improvement of each outcome was not different between the groups. Subgroup analysis by ARS subtype showed benefits of irrigation in the common cold subgroup; the improvements that were greater than control included: rhinologic subscore, intergroup mean difference -4.15 [95% confidence interval (CI), -7.49, -0.80] at 1 week and -5.23 [95% CI, -9.69, -0.78] at 2 weeks; combined symptom score -5.35 [95% CI, -10.55, -0.14] at 1 week and -8.02 [95%CI, -14.36, -1.70] at 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: The add-on isotonic nasal saline irrigation using a large volume, positive pressure device did not add benefits equally for all ARS patients. The benefits of irrigation on quality of life and nasal symptoms were only observed in the common cold patient subgroup.

Herbal Medicines for Allergic Rhinitis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the effects of herbal medicine (HM) therapy in various durations and analyze the effects of HM separately by mechanism of action in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-two studies were included (2,697 patients, mean age 34.6 years). For the ≤ 4 weeks of treatment duration, HM brought greater benefits over placebo in reduction of total nasal symptoms score (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98, -0.38; p <0.01) and improvement in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.81, -0.25; p <0.01). For the 4-12 weeks duration, total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.22; 95%CI -0.4, -0.05; p =0.01) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.48; 95% CI -0.89, -0.06; p =0.03) favored the HM. However, HM therapy for longer than 12 weeks was related to tachyphylaxis and showed no benefit over placebo in any outcomes. There was no difference between the HM and standard treatment on symptoms improvement. Anti-allergic effect, anti-inflammatory effect, anti-leukotriene effect, and anti-histaminic effect of HM were revealed. HM was safe and their adverse effects were comparable placebo. HM therapy is safe and provides better results than placebo in improving nasal symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in patients with AR. Its beneficial effects are demonstrated only in less than 12 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020168367.

Low-dose macrolides for treating pediatric rhinosinusitis: A retrospective study and literature review.

The effects of low-dose macrolide (LDM) therapy on pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients are unknown. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of LDM for treating pediatric refractory CRS. A retrospective study was conducted by a medical chart review. Pediatric CRS patients (age <15 years) who received LDM after standard medical treatments failure between 2013 and 2019 were identified. The LDM treatments with any macrolide agents, doses, and regimens were included. Any co-interventions were allowed. Duration of the LDM therapy was ≥6 weeks. Outcomes were the total nasal symptoms by the visual analogue scale (TNS), presence of individual symptoms, physician-assessment nasal discharge and adverse events. Six patients (67% male, mean age 7±3.4 years) were assessed. All patients had failed to intranasal steroids and nasal saline irrigation but continued. The addition of LDM significantly improved TNS (mean difference ± standard deviation 5.83 ± 1.33; 95% confidence interval 4.44-7.23, p< 0.001). At the end of treatment, the numbers of patients with individual symptoms were decreased: nasal obstruction (100%-67%), rhinorrhea (83%-50%), hyposmia (50%-0%), cough (100%-33%), and physician-assessment thick mucoid discharge (33%-0%). No patients had facial pain. One patient reported mild tolerable nausea. Preliminary findings of this study showed some beneficial effects of LDM added to intranasal steroids and nasal saline irrigation in pediatric CRS after standard treatments failure. The beneficial effects included the improvements of the TNS and individual nasal symptoms and decrease in thick mucoid discharge.

Saline irrigation for allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.Nasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.Nasal saline versus no saline treatmentAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus intranasal steroidsIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.

Hypertonic Saline Versus Isotonic Saline Nasal Irrigation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background Saline nasal lavage is one of the treatments of sinonasal diseases. Evidence from basic research favors hypertonic saline (HS) over isotonic saline (IS) for mucociliary clearance, but evidence from clinical studies is controversial. Conversely, HS may carry greater side effects. Objective To compare the effects of HS and IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. Methods Systematic search with Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Manual additional sources was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing HS with IS nasal irrigation in treating any sinonasal diseases, including rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, were included. Data were pooled for meta-analyses. Outcomes were symptom scores, sinonasal outcome test (SNOT), and adverse events. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses. Results Nine studies (740 patients) were included. HS nasal irrigation brought greater benefits over IS in symptom reduction (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.76, -0.40); however, no difference was shown in SNOT-20 improvement (mean difference 1.81; 95% CI: -0.68, 4.30). In subgroup analyses, effects favoring HS on symptoms were larger in 4 subgroups. These were (1) patients with rhinitis (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) compared with rhinosinusitis (SMD -0.37; 95% CI: -0.58, -0.15), P < .01; (2) patients under the age of 18 years (SMD -1.22; 95% CI: -1.53, -0.91) compared with patients over the age of 18 years (SMD -0.26; 95% CI: -0.49, -0.04), P < .01; (3) saline irrigation using high volume (SMD -0.89; 95% CI: -1.18, -0.60) compared with low volume (SMD -0.39; 95% CI: -0.62, -0.16), P < .01; and (4) saline irrigation with hypertonicity of <3% (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) and hypertonicity of 3%-5% (SMD -1.20; 95% CI: -1.61, -0.78) compared with hypertonicity of >5% (SMD 0.20; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.55), P < .01. Buffered saline and operative status did not have impact. HS brought greater minor adverse effects. No major adverse effects were reported. Conclusion HS improves symptoms over IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. There is no difference in disease-specific quality of life. However, HS brings greater minor side effects than IS.

Does Heating up Saline for Nasal Irrigation Improve Mucociliary Function in Chronic Rhinosinusitis?

Background Mucociliary function is affected by temperature. Exposure to cold air may impair ciliary beat frequency. While saline nasal irrigation improves in ciliary beat activity, there is no evidence supporting the use of heated saline irrigation in treating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Objective To compare the effects of heated saline to room-temperature saline nasal irrigation on mucociliary clearance in chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Methods Adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were randomized into two groups receiving either heated saline or room-temperature saline nasal irrigation. Healthy subjects were included as control. Saccharin transit time was measured before and after nasal irrigation. Nasal patency was assessed by peak nasal inspiratory flow, anterior rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, nasal obstruction score, and breathe-comfort score. Any adverse events were reported. Results Twenty-three patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nine healthy subjects were enrolled. Saccharin transit time was decreased after nasal irrigation in both heated saline subgroup (baseline 12.3 ± 4.5 min vs. postirrigation 8.4 ± 4.9 min, p = 0.05) and room-temperature subgroup (baseline 12.8 ± 5.0 min vs. postirrigation 8.9 ± 4.2 min, p = 0.01). The saccharin transit time improvement was not different between heated saline (3.8 ± 6.2 min) and room-temperature saline (3.8 ± 4.0 min), p = 0.13. Postheated saline irrigation saccharin transit time of chronic rhinosinusitis patients (8.4 ± 4.9 min) was not different to healthy subjects (9.2 ± 3.7 min), p = 0.69. Nasal patency was not different between groups. There was no adverse event reported. Conclusion Nasal saline irrigation is beneficial to patients with chronic rhinosinusitis on mucociliary improvement. Warming saline is not necessary and adds no additional benefit to room-temperature saline irrigation.

Comparison of buffered and nonbuffered nasal saline irrigations in treating allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to study the effect of alkalinity of isotonic nasal saline irrigation on nasal symptoms, mucociliary clearance, nasal patency, and patient's preference in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, three-arm crossover study. METHODS: Patients with AR were enrolled. Three kinds of isotonic nasal saline irrigations: nonbuffered (pH 6.2-6.4), buffered with mild alkalinity (pH 7.2-7.4), and buffered with alkalinity (pH 8.2-8.4) were given one at a time, in different orders. Patients rinsed their nose with 240 ml of one solution twice daily for 10 days and then swapped to the others. The washout period was at least 5 days. Primary outcomes were nasal symptoms, mucociliary clearance time, and nasal patency. Outcomes were compared between baseline and posttreatment and also between various kinds of solution. Secondary outcomes were patients' preference and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects entered the study, and there were no dropouts. Overall nasal symptom was significantly improved from baseline (P = 0.03) only by buffered solution with mild alkalinity. Sneezing was significantly improved from baseline (P = 0.04) only by buffered solution with alkalinity. No other significant improvements were achieved by any solution. When comparing between the three nasal irrigations, there were no differences in all parameters. The patients significantly preferred the buffered solution with mild alkalinity (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Buffered isotonic saline with some degree of alkalinity may improve nasal symptoms. Isotonic saline irrigations, regardless of alkalinity, may not improve mucociliary function and nasal patency. Buffered isotonic saline with mild alkalinity is the most preferred.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for sudden sensorineural hearing loss after failure from oral and intratympanic corticosteroid.

Systemic and intratympanic steroids are most widely used for treating idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Other treatments include vasodilator, immunosuppressant and antiviral medication. However, only 61% of patients achieve full recovery, and controversies about the standard treatment still exist. In this case report, we present a patient with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss who failed to respond to systemic and intratympanic steroid treatments but subsequently recovered after undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.