[Difficult-to-treat chronic rhinosinusitis-when the standard treatment is not effective and biologics are not available]. / Schwierig zu behandelnde chronische Rhinosinusitis ­ wenn die Standardtherapie nicht wirkt und Biologika nicht zur Verfügung stehen.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, significant improvements have been made in the treatment options for uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to standard medical and surgical therapy. This is the result of a better understanding of the pathophysiology and the resulting development of biologicals for CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, biologics are not (yet) available for all patients in Europe. OBJECTIVE: Based on the session "Difficult-to-treat CRS, when biologics are not available" at the 29th Congress of the European Rhinologic Society (ERS) 2023 in Sofia, Bulgaria, the treatment options for uncontrolled CRS with the exclusion of biologics will be discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The content of the presentations "Is there a place for antibiotics?" "Indications for revision surgery," "Novel systemic treatment options," "Novel local treatment options," and "Phototherapy for nasal polyps" are outlined and supported by a review of the literature. RESULTS: Various treatment options are available for managing uncontrolled CRS, even if biologic treatments are unavailable. Treatment options for type­2 (T2) CRS include steroid rinses, repeated short-term oral steroids, steroid-eluting stents, and extended sinus surgery. In the case of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) desensitization can be considered. Non-T2 endotypes or CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) may benefit from several weeks of macrolides and xylitol rinses. CONCLUSION: To accurately assess the efficacy of second-line therapies for treatment of difficult-to-treat CRS within an endotype-specific framework, additional controlled clinical trials are needed that take into account the heterogeneity of CRS endotypes.

[Acute and chronic rhinosinusitis age characteristics]. / Vozrastnye osobennosti techeniya ostrogo i khronicheskogo rinosinusita.

Children's and adults' rhinosinusitis are two diseases that have both similarities and differences in anatomy, epidemiology, causes, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. At the same rhinosinusitis is one of the most common in otorhinolaryngology's practice, both in children and adults. The of adults paranasal sinuses (PNS) anatomy differs from children's PNS anatomy. Although ostiomeatal complex occlusion is recognized as a major cause of poor ventilation and drainage of the adult paranasal sinuses, it does not have a strong effect on pediatric rhinosinusitis, but adenoids play a key role. Adenoids are bacteria and biofilms reservoirs that cause chronic refractory rhinosinusitis regardless of pharyngeal tonsil size. The prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is lower in children than in adults. Diagnosis of children's rhinosinusitis is more difficult because nasal cavity endoscopic examination is performed rarely due to the occasional need of general anesthesia during the procedure. Moreover, it's necessary to take into account prevailing etiological role of viruses in ARS at children's age and chronic adenoiditis often accompanies pediatric CRS, which requires attention prescribing medical therapy as the basis of rhinosinusitis treatment. The DysheLORz based on Pelargonium sidoides roots is highly effective and safe for children's and adults ARS and CRS treatment, both as monotherapy and in combination with topical steroids and antibiotics. This herbal medicine immunomodulatory effect is mediated mainly by stimulating the production of TNF-α, IL-1, IL-12 and IFN-γ. It activates macrophages and improves their phagocytic activity. IL-12, together with TNF-α, enhances NK and cytotoxic CD8+ lymphocytes' activity against infected cells. IL-12 effect on Th1 lymphocytes maturation provides a link between innate and adaptive immunity. This is also increasing MCP-1, IP-10 and MIP-1ß chemokines synthesis and decreasing MIP-1α, ENA-78, GROα and IL-8 production in PNS and nasal mucosa. This leads to decrease of neutrophils chemotaxis to the inflammation site, and decline of serine proteases concentration (neutrophils main enzymes), that increases mucous membrane epithelial barrier permeability, reducing bacterial infections risk. Additionally, Pelargonium sidoides increases epithelial cells beating cilia frequency and inhibits hemagglutinin and neuraminidase present on influenza virus surface. The drug increases antimicrobial peptides production as defensins, human neutrophil peptides (HNP) and bactericidal permeability-increasing protein (BPI), which is also important for rapid inflammation regression in rhinosinusitis. It causes bacterial adhesion to epithelial cells inhibition, phagocytosis stimulation, nitric oxide (NO) release and oxidative burst. The medicine had a direct effect on Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Neisseria, Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenza. Based on these data, it is possible to explain the high effectiveness and safety of the drugs based on Pelargonium sidoides in ENT organs inflammation treatment, for both adults and children over 1 year old.

Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory disease of the nose and paranasal sinuses, with a prevalence of approximately 1% to 7%. It is defined by the presence of at least two cardinal symptoms (nasal blockage, obstruction, or congestion; anterior or posterior nasal drainage; facial pain or pressure; and hyposmia) for at least three consecutive months, with objective findings on imaging or nasal endoscopy. CRS can result in significant patient costs and lower quality of life due to severe fatigue, depression, and sometimes reduced cognitive function. The condition is categorized as primary or secondary and with or without nasal polyps. Treatment is directed at reducing symptoms, improving mucus clearance, reducing inflammation, enhancing ciliary function, and removing bacteria and biofilms from the nasal mucosa. First-line treatment comprises nasal saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids. Acute exacerbation of CRS is common and is defined as a transient worsening of symptoms. The role of oral antibiotics and oral corticosteroids for acute exacerbations is unclear. Optimal maintenance therapy can help alleviate exacerbations. Patients with refractory CRS that is not responsive to first-line treatment and patients with alarm symptoms should be referred to an otolaryngologist for further evaluation and consideration of surgical management. Identifying patients who have CRS with nasal polyps or comorbid conditions such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, or eosinophilic esophagitis is especially important to ensure they are referred to a specialist for consideration of biologic therapy.

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in a Rabbit Model of Rhinosinusitis.

Little is known about alternative treatment options for rhinosinusitis (RS). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for RS in experimentally induced rabbit models of RS. A total of 18 rabbits were divided into four groups: a negative control group (n = 3), an RS group without treatment (n = 5, positive control group), an RS group with natural recovery (n = 5, natural recovery group), and an RS group with laser irradiation (n = 5, laser-treated group). Computed tomography and histopathological staining were performed for each group. mRNA and protein expression levels of local cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-17, and IL-5) were also measured. Tissue inflammation revealed a significant improvement in the laser-treated group compared with the RS and natural recovery groups (p < 0.01). In addition, sinus opacification in the CT scans and cytokine expression was reduced in the laser-treated group, though without statistical significance. LLLT could be an effective option for the management of RS concerning radiological, histological, and molecular parameters.

SNOT-22 scores after 6 months of aspirin therapy are predictive of long-term quality of life in AERD.

Background: Aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is an inflammatory condition that consists of eosinophilic asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and respiratory reactions to cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitors. Aspirin therapy after aspirin desensitization (ATAD) is the most extensively studied treatment paradigm for AERD. Objective: The objective was to identify which time point of ATAD was most predictive of long-term outcomes as measured by the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients at a single institution who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery, followed by ATAD, and had remained on ATAD for 2 consecutive years. SNOT-22 scores were recorded at predesensitization as well as at the 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdesensitization time points. The patients were separated into two cohorts at each of the data collection time points based on whether their SNOT-22 scores were < 20 (responders) or ≥ 20 (nonresponders). Responder status was compared between each time point and at 24-month postdesensitization. The odds ratios (OR) were then calculated between the two groups at each of the following time points: postsurgery/predesensitization, and 3-, 6-, and 12-month postdesensitization. Results: There were 70 patients who met the inclusion criteria of having 24-month postdesensitization SNOT-22 scores available. Responder status at 6 months after surgery had the most predictive OR 16.5 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-73.44) for long-term outcomes at 24 months. Conclusion: The SNOT-22 scores after 6 months of ATAD showed the greatest predictive value for long-term quality-of-life outcomes and, therefore, poor 6-month SNOT-22 scores could serve as a basis for consideration of alternative therapies.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps management in the biologic therapy era: an international YO-IFOS survey.

PURPOSE: To investigate the consistency between the international guidelines recommendations and worldwide standard practices regarding diagnostic work-up and follow-up strategies for managing patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) in the era of monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the Rhinology section of the Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (Yo-IFOS) included items regarding the management of CRSwNP patients, monoclonal prescription, surgical and follow-up procedures, awareness of biologicals availability, and other relevant clinical practices. The online survey was directed to otolaryngologists and distributed in Europe, North America, South America, and the Middle East through otolaryngological and/or rhinological societies. RESULTS: A total of 202 responses were analyzed; the mean participants' age was 45 ± 11 (73% men and 27% women), and 31% were from the United States, Canada 19%, Europe 45%, Middle East and South America 5%. Only 60% of the respondents declared using validated symptoms and endoscopic score systems in their clinical practice. Several practice discrepancies emerged in our cohort, including preferred surgical approach, prescription of preoperative oral steroids, and perioperative antibiotics (59% and 58%, respectively), as well as divergent awareness levels of available biologics for CRSwNP worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: CRSwNP needs a complex and time-consuming assessment, according to the latest guidelines. There seems to be a gap between these recommendations and the real-world data, which should draw more attention to bringing them into uniform clinical practice in the near future.

Rhinosinusitis: clinical-based phenotyping.

Rhinosinusitis (RS) is a common disease and is currently classified into two main types: acute RS (ARS) and chronic RS (CRS), which in turn includes CRS with or without nasal polyps. Different guidelines consider this classification. However, in clinical practice, other phenotypes exist. The current article would propose new clinical-based phenotyping of RS, including the following clinical phenotypes: simple catarrhal RS, Acute RS, acute bacterial RS, severe (complicated) acute RS, chronic RS, and recurrent chronic RS. Treatment strategy should be tailored considering the clinical phenotype and could include phytomedicines, intranasal non-pharmacological remedies, and local bacteriotherapy. In conclusion, RS requires thorough diagnostic work-up, and the therapeutic approach should be mainly based on appropriate management.

Integrative Approach to Rhinosinusitis: An Update.

Rhinosinusitis is characterized by inflammation of the mucosa involving the paranasal sinuses and the nasal cavity and is one of the most common and significant health care problems, with significant impairment of quality of life. Current standard conventional management of rhinosinusitis commonly uses multiple therapeutic modalities to break the cycle of chronic disease. However, to date, there is no consensus as to the optimal treatment algorithm for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. There is a growing interest in the use of complementary and integrative medicine for the treatment of rhinosinusitis. This article update focuses on an integrative approach to rhinosinusitis.

A Comparison of International Guidelines for Rhinosinusitis.

The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS), latest version EPOS2020, and the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS), latest version ICAR-RS-2021, assimilate thousands of articles on the topic of rhinosinusitis. Encompassing scores of subtopics and relying on the perspectives of many international experts, EPOS2020 and ICAR-RS-2021 reduce the existing data into consumable formats and create evidence-based recommendations. The approaches and findings are similar in many respects but have significant differences. This clinical commentary, authored by some of the principal authors of these documents, compares and contrasts EPOS2020 and ICAR-RS-2021, examining methodology, diagnostic and treatment recommendations, and each document's emphases. This commentary demonstrates that, through somewhat differing methodologies, the 2 documents arrive at largely similar conclusions. Those who care for patients suffering from rhinosinusitis will find the documents complementary and valuable in their differences as much as in their similarities.

Appraisal of the Real-World Effectiveness of Biologic Therapies in Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease.

BACKGROUND: There are no head-to-head studies for patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) comparing any of the 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved respiratory biologic therapies. OBJECTIVE: Explore outcomes in subjects with AERD using biologic therapies in a real-world clinic setting. METHODS: A retrospective pilot study was conducted for subjects with AERD who had been prescribed omalizumab (anti-IgE), mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), reslizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (anti-IL-5 receptor alpha [anti-IL-5Rα]), or dupilumab (anti-IL-4 receptor alpha [anti-IL-4Rα]). Clinical outcomes pre- versus postinitiation of biologic therapy were explored including symptoms, 22-item sino-nasal outcome test scores, systemic corticosteroid and antibiotic prescriptions, and emergency room visits related to AERD. RESULTS: Of the 74 subjects, 58.1% (n = 43) had used 1 biologic, though many (41.9%, n = 31) trialed more than 1 biologic. Of the 50 subjects who had used anti-IL-4Rα therapy, 98% (49 of 50) still had this therapy prescribed at study completion compared with 48.6% (17 of 35) and 26.9% (7 of 26) of those who used anti-IgE and anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor alpha (anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα) therapy, respectively. Among those on anti-IL-4Rα therapy, there was a significant reduction in median total 22-item sino-nasal outcome test scores (51 to 19, P = .0002), corticosteroid bursts (2 to 0, P < .0001), and median number of antibiotic courses for respiratory disease (1 to 0, P = .0469) prebiologic versus postbiologic initiation. No statistically significant difference in those outcomes was observed for individuals on anti-IgE or anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-IL-4Rα therapy led to significantly higher rates of clinical improvement in AERD when compared with anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα and anti-IgE biologic therapies. Prospective studies would help clarify best practices for the use of biologic therapies in AERD.

Eosinophils in the Field of Nasal Polyposis: Towards a Better Understanding of Biologic Therapies.

Eosinophils are often considered as the pathologic landmark of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Many studies emphasize their pivotal role in mucosal remodeling by their innate action via cytotoxic proteins degranulation. Eosinophil nasal recruitment from the bloodstream through endothelium diapedeses requires the intricate action between the nasal epithelium, epithelial cell-activated type 2 innate lymphoid cells, and adaptive immune cells secreting alarmins, cytokines, and specific chemokines. This immune pathway refers to a T-helper 2 (T2)-driven lymphocyte response, often considered as the main inflammatory process in CRSwNP in western countries. The release of T2 cytokines, among which interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13, fundamentally contributes to this immune response. New biologic agents capable of blocking T2 cytokines have been developed in the field of eosinophil-associated diseases, shifting the paradigm of treatment for patients with CRSwNP. The first part of this review describes each step of the eosinophil journey from hematopoietic stem cell maturation to nasal mucosa homing. The different eosinophil activation processes and their inflammatory functions are also described. This is followed by a discussion on currently available biologic therapies in CRSwNP with a specific focus on eosinophilic response. Beyond an eosinophil-blocking strategy, a cluster analysis of specific T2 biomarkers could be required to best predict the response to such biologic therapies in the future.

Effects of pulsed ultrasound on olfactory dysfunction in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: and purpose. Olfactory dysfunction is a common symptom of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of therapeutic pulsed ultrasound (PUS) on olfactory dysfunction in patients with CRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with CRS underwent treatment with PUS for 10 sessions, three days a week. The outcome measures were the Smell Identification Test (SIT) and 20-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20). RESULTS: Fifteen patients (9 male, mean age 48.9 ± 9.7 years) with disease duration of 55.13 ± 65.4 months participated. Analyses showed olfactory dysfunction was completely resolved (Cohen's d = 5.62). The SNOT-20 scores showed significant improvement of CRS symptoms after treatment (Cohen's d = 1.55). Effects remained at one-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic PUS improved the olfactory dysfunction and sino-nasal symptoms in patients with CRS. The PUS can be considered as a promising strategy to target chronic rhinosinusitis.

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.

British Rhinological Society Consensus Guidance on the use of biological therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to create Consensus Guidelines, based on current evidence and relative risks of adverse effects and the costs of different treatments, which reflect the views of the British Rhinological Society (BRS) Council on where the use of biologics should be positioned within treatment pathways for CRSwNP, specifically in the setting of the National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: An expert panel of 16 members was assembled. A review of the literature and evidence synthesis was undertaken and circulated to the panel. We used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi-step process to make recommendations on the use of biologics. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: Recommendations were made, based on underlying disease severity, prior treatments and co-morbidities. A group of patients for whom biologics were considered an appropriate treatment option for CRSwNP was defined. CONCLUSIONS: Although biologics are not currently available for the treatment of CRSwNP, the BRS Council have defined a group of patients who have higher rates of "failure" with current treatment pathways, higher resource use and are more likely to suffer with uncontrolled symptoms. We would urge NICE to consider approval of biologics for such indications without applying further restrictions on use.

Nasal saline irrigation: prescribing habits and attitudes of physicians and pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the opinions, the usage and the patient education given on nasal saline irrigation by physicians and pharmaceutical personnel working in Finland. DESIGN: An internet-based survey with predetermined, multiple-choice answers. SETTING: Primary care centres, occupational health centres and private care centres in Eastern Finland as well as pharmacies in Finland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Healthcare professionals views, practice and general knowledge of nasal irrigation for sinonasal symptoms and conditions. RESULTS: We received 595 completed surveys (110 physicians, 485 pharmacists). The majority of the respondents recommended nasal saline irrigation for their patients either as a symptomatic treatment (98.0%) or to treat a specific condition (97.5%) such as acute rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis. Nasal saline irrigation was also often recommended as a prophylaxis for airway-infections (71.9%) and to enhance the health of the nasal mucosa (58.2%). In general, the possible adverse effects were recognised poorly by both professions. There was a clear difference between the two professions, as physicians were more conservative in recommending nasal saline irrigation and recognised possible adverse effects, such as epistaxis, pain, and dryness of the nose, better (75% vs. 59%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal saline irrigation seems to be a popular treatment recommended by many health care professionals in Finland. Physicians and pharmaceutical personnel had variable opinions on the indications, utility and risks of nasal saline irrigation. There are also clear differences between physicians and pharmaceutical personnel's practices. There is a need to better educate professionals about nasal saline irrigation and to further study whether nasal saline irrigation is efficient and safe option for the different common sinonasal conditions.KEY POINTSLittle information is available on how physicians and pharmacists recommend nasal saline irrigation as a symptomatic treatment.Physicians and pharmacists seem to have variable opinions about the indications, utility and safety of nasal saline irrigation.The patient education given is in general very heterogenous.Both professions require more education to ensure that the usage remains as safe as possible for the patient.

Manuka honey versus saline sinus irrigation in the treatment of cystic fibrosis-associated chronic rhinosinusitis: A randomised pilot trial.

OBJECTIVES: Manuka honey attacks biofilms, which contribute to bacterial persistence in cystic fibrosis sinusitis. The primary objective was to determine feasibility of investigating manuka honey as an irrigation treatment for cystic fibrosis sinusitis and secondarily to assess the treatment's preliminary effectiveness. DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded (clinician only), randomised, parallel two-arm pilot trial. SETTING: Tertiary rhinology clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects had recalcitrant cystic fibrosis sinusitis and previous sinus surgery. They received manuka honey or saline sinus irrigations twice daily for 30 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcomes were recruitment/retention rates and tolerability. Preliminary effectiveness was assessed based on quality-of-life Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic change scores and post-treatment culture negativity. RESULTS: Over 10 months, 13 subjects were enrolled, and 77% (10/13) were included in the analysis. Manuka honey irrigations were well-tolerated. The quality-of-life change score was clinically significant for manuka honey (-9 [-14,-6]) but not saline (-5 [-9,-1]), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .29). Lund-Kennedy endoscopic change score was significantly better for manuka honey (-3 [-5,-3]) versus saline (0 [0,0]) (P = .006). There was no difference in post-treatment culture negativity between manuka honey (1/5, 20%) and saline (0/5, 0%) (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Manuka honey irrigations were well tolerated, and retention rates were high. Preliminary data showed that manuka honey achieved a clinically important difference in quality-of-life score and a significantly better endoscopic outcome. Microbiological control was difficult to achieve. A future definitive trial would require multi-institutional recruitment.

Biotherapy and treatment of adult primary chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Cellular and molecular bases.

The present article reviews the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in the pathophysiology of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwCRSwNP) and underlying the action mechanisms of biotherapies. Biotherapy uses substances naturally produced by the organism or their specific antagonists targeting a proinflammatory mechanism. CRSwCRSwNP is a form of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), which is classically subdivided in to 2 types according to the presence of polyps. In recent years, the concept of endotypes emerged, with a more exhaustive definition of the types of CRS according to inflammatory mechanism, with a view to developing personalized treatments. CRSwNP pathophysiology is poorly understood. Polyps arise from a primary epithelial lesion in a context of chronic local inflammation, mainly type 2 in Europe, implicating eosinophils, IgE, Th2 cytokines (IL-4/IL-13, IL-5) and T and B cells. Biotherapy seems promising in CRSwNP. The present review details the various pathophysiological pathways underlying the action mechanisms of biotherapies, and the various published studies, assessing efficacy and mode of action in the treatment of CRSwNP.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.