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.

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.