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.

Concordance of self-reported practice patterns of American Rhinologic Society members with the International Consensus Statement of Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The 2016 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR:RS) is a collaborative distillation of available research and consensus recommendations for the management for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). However, implementation of the ICAR:RS recommendations in the reality of clinical practice is not clearly defined. METHODS: An anonymous, web-based survey of the American Rhinologic Society membership was performed in October, 2018. Respondents were asked about the frequency that they recommended the various treatments reviewed in ICAR:RS in the context of medical management for CRS. A 7-point Likert-type scale assessed the frequency of treatment patterns. RESULTS: A total of 140 members completed the survey (response rate 11.9%). Seventy-two (51.4%) were in practice for 0 to 15 years, 61 (43.6%) completed a rhinology fellowship, and 73 (52.1%) worked in private practice. Disparate treatment patterns were reported for each of the therapies assessed for CRS, including those that were "recommended" or "recommended against" in ICAR:RS. Members with <15 years of experience were more likely to use nasal saline irrigation. Fellowship-trained respondents reported a greater likelihood of using nasal saline irrigation and aspirin desensitization (for patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease). Practitioners in academic medicine were more likely to utilize aspirin desensitization than those in private practice. Surgeons performing >100 sinus surgeries per year were more likely to use topical antibiotics. CONCLUSION: The range of reported treatment patterns identified in this study despite the availability of the ICAR:RS recommendations may suggest the need for improved standardization of CRS management.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: This update of a 2007 guideline from the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations to manage adult rhinosinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. Changes from the prior guideline include a consumer added to the update group, evidence from 42 new systematic reviews, enhanced information on patient education and counseling, a new algorithm to clarify action statement relationships, expanded opportunities for watchful waiting (without antibiotic therapy) as initial therapy of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), and 3 new recommendations for managing chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). PURPOSE: The purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing adult rhinosinusitis and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, promote appropriate use of ancillary tests to confirm diagnosis and guide management, and promote judicious use of systemic and topical therapy, which includes radiography, nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. Emphasis was also placed on identifying multiple chronic conditions that would modify management of rhinosinusitis, including asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia. ACTION STATEMENTS: The update group made strong recommendations that clinicians (1) should distinguish presumed ABRS from acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions and (2) should confirm a clinical diagnosis of CRS with objective documentation of sinonasal inflammation, which may be accomplished using anterior rhinoscopy, nasal endoscopy, or computed tomography. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should either offer watchful waiting (without antibiotics) or prescribe initial antibiotic therapy for adults with uncomplicated ABRS; (2) should prescribe amoxicillin with or without clavulanate as first-line therapy for 5 to 10 days (if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic); (3) should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days after diagnosis or worsens during the initial management; (4) should distinguish CRS and recurrent ARS from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms; (5) should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent ARS for multiple chronic conditions that would modify management, such as asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia; (6) should confirm the presence or absence of nasal polyps in a patient with CRS; and (7) should recommend saline nasal irrigation, topical intranasal corticosteroids, or both for symptom relief of CRS. The update group stated as options that clinicians may (1) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation for symptomatic relief of viral rhinosinusitis; (2) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation) for symptomatic relief of ABRS; and (3) obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent ARS. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should not obtain radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for ARS, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected, and (2) should not prescribe topical or systemic antifungal therapy for patients with CRS.

Early postoperative care following endoscopic sinus surgery: an evidence-based review with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Early postoperative care following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has been suggested to minimize avoidable complications and optimize long-term outcomes. Several postoperative care strategies have been proposed but a formal comprehensive evaluation of the evidence has never been performed. The purpose of this article is to provide an evidence-based approach to early postoperative care following ESS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and the Clinical Practice Guideline Manual, Conference on Guideline Standardization (COGS), and the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research Evaluation (AGREE) instrument recommendations were followed. Study inclusion criteria were: adult population >18 years old; chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) based on published diagnostic criteria; ESS following failed medical therapy; primary study objective was to evaluate an ESS early postoperative care strategy; and clearly defined primary clinical end-point. RESULTS: This review identified and evaluated the literature on 7 early postoperative care strategies following ESS: saline irrigations, sinus cavity debridements, systemic steroids, topical steroids, oral antibiotics, topical decongestants, and drug-eluting spacers/stents. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, use of nasal saline irrigation, sinus cavity debridement, and standard topical nasal steroid spray are recommended early postoperative care interventions. Postoperative antibiotic, systemic steroid, nonstandard topical nasal steroid solution, and/or drug-eluting spacers/stents are options in postoperative management. These evidence-based recommendations should not necessarily be applied to all postoperative patients and clinical judgment, in addition to evidence, is critical to determining the most appropriate care.

Microarray analysis of allergic fungal sinusitis and eosinophilic mucin rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine and compare the differential gene expression in allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) and eosinophilic mucin rhinosinusitis (EMRS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a complementary DNA microarray analysis of prospectively gathered tissue from a tertiary rhinology practice. RESULTS: Compared to normal subjects, 38 genes or potential genes were differentially expressed in AFS patients, while 10 genes were differentially expressed in EMRS patients. Four genes differentially expressed in EMRS were not differentially expressed in AFS: cathepsin B, sialyltransferase 1, GM2 ganglioside activator protein, and S100 calcium binding protein. These genes mediate lysosomal activity and are known to have differential expression in inflammatory and neoplastic states. CONCLUSIONS: EMRS and AFS show some similarities in gene expression profiles using microarray analysis. Significant differences in gene expression in both EMRS and AFS patients compared with normal subjects provide early clues to the pathophysiology of EMRS and AFS. SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates that complementary DNA microarray analysis is a feasible tool for studying different disease subclassifications and is the first to study these subclasses in chronic rhinosinusitis.