Prevention of middle ear barotrauma with oxymetazoline/fluticasone treatment.

Middle ear barotrauma (MEB) is a common complication of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy. It has been reported in more than 40% of HBO2 treatments and can interrupt the sequence of HBO2. MEB may lead to pain, tympanic membrane rupture, and even hearing loss. The aim of this study was to determine if pretreatment with intranasal fluticasone and oxymetazoline affected the incidence of MEB. We conducted a retrospective chart review of subjects undergoing HBO2 at our institution between February 1, 2014, and May 31, 2019. Subjects in the fluticasone/oxymetazoline (FOT) treatment group used intranasal fluticasone 50 mcg two times per day and oxymetazoline 0.05% one spray two times per day beginning 48 hours prior to initial HBO2. Oxymetazoline was discontinued after four days. Fluticasone was continued for the duration of HBO2 therapy. A total of 154 unique subjects underwent 5,683 HBO2 treatments: 39 unique subjects in the FOT group underwent 1,501 HBO2; 115 unique subjects in the nFOT (no oxymetazoline or fluticasone treatment) group underwent 4,182 HBO2 treatments. The incidence of MEB was 15.4% in the FOT group and 16.2% in the nFOT group. This was not a statistically significant difference (OR = 0.77; p = 0.636). Treatment pressure, age over 65 years, male sex, and BMI were not associated with a difference in MEB incidence. In summary, pretreatment with intranasal oxymetazoline and fluticasone in patients undergoing HBO2 did not significantly reduce MEB. More investigation with larger numbers of participants and prospective studies could further clarify this issue.

Severe Rhinitis Medicamentosa Successfully Treated with Rhinolight® Endonasal UV Phototherapy

Aim Report successful application of UV endonasal phototherapy as a treatment for severe rhinitis medicamentosa and allergic rhinitis. Methods Allergic rhinitis confirmed by history and skin prick testing; rhinitis medicamentosa based on history. Both confirmed at nasendoscopy. Symptom score before & after treatment. Introduction of Rhinolight endonasal u/v phototherapy for allergic rhinitis. Single patient report. Results Successful remission of Rhinitis Medicamentosa confirmed with patient after eight sessions Rhinolight endonasal phototherapy. Use of nasal decongestant dropped from 2 bottles/daily x 4 years to zero. Symptoms reduced from 25 pre-treatment to 6 post-treatment. Rhinitis medicamentosa is clinically characterized by nasal congestion without rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, or sneezing that begins after using a nasal decongestant for more than 3 days. Treatment involves discontinuation of the offending drug. Discussion Rhinolight endonasal phototherapy is a new treatment for allergic rhinitis and offered as last resort for a patient with untreated allergic rhinitis and overuse of topical decongestants. Patient reports a significant improvement in symptoms with cessation of topical decongestant. Report a successful application of UV endonasal phototherapy as a treatment for severe rhinitis medicamentosa against a background of long standing allergic rhinitis.

Co-Phenylcaine Spray: can we improve the taste? A randomised, double-blind, crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: Co-Phenylcaine Forte is a nasal spray routinely prescribed by otolaryngologists in Australia. The taste of Co-Phenylcaine Forte is typically described as unpleasant. This study sought to improve the overall patient experience associated with Co-Phenylcaine Forte by generating a Co-Phenylcaine Forte formulation, referred to as Co-Phenylcaine Zest, which contains an added vanilla flavour and masking agent. METHODS: Participants were randomised to receive two actuations of Co-Phenylcaine Forte in each nostril followed by two actuations of Co-Phenylcaine Zest, or vice versa. There was a 6-36-hour washout period between each treatment. After the administration of each spray, participants completed a questionnaire to rate various sensory attributes of each formulation on seven-point ordinal scales. Patients reported their overall formulation preference after receiving both treatments. RESULTS: A total of 86 participants completed the trial. Seventy-four per cent of patients preferred Co-Phenylcaine Zest, 21 per cent preferred Co-Phenylcaine Forte and 5 per cent had no preference (p < 0.001). The satisfaction score associated with Co-Phenylcaine Zest was 1.22 points greater than with Co-Phenylcaine Forte (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A novel formulation of Co-Phenylcaine Forte was created by adding a flavour and a masking agent; this formulation was preferred by most patients.

Allergic rhinitis: meaningful and less meaningful combination treatments including reminiscences.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) results from a complex allergen-driven mucosal inflammation in the nasal cavity. Current guideline-based therapy for allergic rhinitis include oral and nasal antihistamines, topical and systemic glucocorticoids, decongestants, antimuscarinic agents, mast cell stabilizing drugs, leukotriene-receptor antagonists, and others. In spite of guideline recommendations, most patients are using multiple therapies in an attempt to achieve symptom control. Therefore, more effective therapies for the management of AR are clearly required. Recently, a novel fixed dose combination containing azelastine and fluticasone propionate has successfully been introduced. At present, it represents the only meaningful topical drug combination. Perhaps, it will be followed by others.

The history and progression of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

This article intends to place new treatments in the context of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment history. The medical literature was searched for significant advances and changes in AR treatment. Historical data on AR treatment options and management were selected. Reviews of AR management published throughout the 20th century were included to provide context for treatment advances. Modern AR treatment began in the early 20th century with immunotherapy and was soon followed by the emergence of antihistamine therapy in the 1930s. Numerous treatments for AR have been used over the ensuing decades, including decongestants, mast cell stabilizers, and leukotriene receptor antagonists. Topical corticosteroid options were developed the 1950s, and, added to baseline antihistamine therapy, became the foundation of AR treatment. Treatment options were significantly impacted after the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which phased out the use of chlorofluorocarbon propellant aerosols because of environmental concerns. From the mid-1990s until recently, this left only aqueous solution options for intranasal corticosteroids (INSs). The approval of the first hydrofluoroalkane propellant aerosol INSs for AR in 2012 restored a "dry" aerosol treatment option. The first combination intranasal antihistamine/INSs was also approved in 2012, providing a novel treatment option for AR. Treatment of AR has progressed with new therapeutic options now available. This should continue to move forward with agents to alter the allergic mechanism itself and impact the disease burden that has a significant impact on patient outcomes.

Intranasal topical local anesthetic and decongestant for flexible nasendoscopy in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, the present study is the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in children to compare nasal preparation sprays administered before flexible nasendoscopy with placebo. OBJECTIVE: To compare the degree of pain experienced by children undergoing flexible nasendoscopy after 1 of 3 intranasal sprays: placebo, decongestant with topical local anesthetic (TLA), or decongestant without TLA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized placebo-controlled trial with blinding of participants, caregivers, observers, and otolaryngologists was conducted in a tertiary pediatric otolaryngology ambulatory clinic. Participants included a consecutive sample of children aged 3 to 12 years requiring flexible nasendoscopy. Exclusion criteria included concomitant respiratory tract infection, known allergy to a trial agent, or previous flexible nasendoscopy. One hundred fifty-one children were assessed for eligibility; 24 eligible children refused participation and 69 were included and block-randomized. All completed the study, and there were no adverse events. INTERVENTIONS: Nasal spray administration of placebo (normal saline); xylometazoline hydrochloride, 0.05% (decongestant); or lidocaine hydrochloride, 1%, with xylometazoline hydrochloride, 0.05% (TLA with decongestant) was performed 10 minutes before flexible nasendoscopy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the child-reported Wong-Baker Faces Pain (WBFP) scale. Secondary outcomes included the caregiver-proxy WBFP scale; the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale; and the physician-reported Difficulty of Procedure Visual Analog Scale (DPVAS). RESULTS: Twenty-three children were recruited in each of the intervention arms. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. The mean child-rated WBFP scale scores were 2.4, 1.8, and 2.2 for the placebo, decongestant, and TLA with decongestant groups, respectively (P = .45). Although the finding was statistically nonsignificant, decongestant had the lowest mean caregiver-proxy WBFP scale score, lowest observer-rated FLACC scale score, and highest physician-rated DPVAS score. Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate any correlation between the outcomes and age or sex. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study revealed no statistically significant difference in the discomfort experienced by children undergoing flexible nasendoscopy after placebo, decongestant, or TLA with decongestant. Decongestant was associated with the least discomfort (on child, caregiver, and observer-rated pain scale scores) and the lowest rating for difficulty of procedure. With these findings, the study suggests that there is no significant benefit of topical decongestant with or without TLA compared with placebo in reducing pain associated with pediatric flexible nasendoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01351298.

A randomized trial of topical anesthesia comparing lidocaine versus lidocaine plus xylometazoline for unsedated transnasal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The optimal topical anesthesia regimen for unsedated transnasal endoscopy is unknown. The addition of a nasal decongestant, such as xylometazoline (X), to a topical anesthestic may improve patient comfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lidocaine (L) versus L plus X (LX) for anesthesia in unsedated transnasal endoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive participants of the Aklavik Helicobacter pylori project were prospectively randomly assigned to receive LX or L for unsedated transnasal 4.9 mm ultrathin endoscopy. The primary outcome was overall procedure discomfort on a validated 10-point visual analogue scale (1 = no discomfort, 10 = severe discomfort). Secondary outcomes included pain, endoscope insertion difficulty, gagging, adverse events and encounter times. Results were presented as mean +/- SD, difference in mean, 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were randomly assigned to receive LX (n=94) and L (n=87). Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar (mean age 40 years, 59% women). Overall, patient procedural discomfort with LX and L were 4.2+/-2.4 versus 3.9+/-2.1, respectively (0.29; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.96). Transnasal insertion difficulty was significantly lower with LX than with L (2.4+/-2.1 versus 3.2+/-2.8, respectively [-0.80; 95% CI -1.54 to -0.06]). Compared with L, the use of LX was associated with significantly less time needed to apply anesthesia (2.4+/-1.8 min versus 3.5+/-2.2 min, respectively [-1.10; 95% CI -1.71 min to -0.50 min]) and less time for insertion (3.2+/-1.8 min versus 3.9+/-2.2 min, respectively [-0.70 min; 95% CI -1.30 min to -0.10 min]). Epistaxis was rare but occurred less frequently with LX (1.1%) than with L (4.6%) (P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: LX did not improve patient comfort for transnasal endoscopy compared with L alone. However, LX was associated with less difficulty with endoscope transnasal insertion and reduced insertion time. Further studies on the optimal regimen and dosing of anesthesia are required.

[The use of sinupret in the combined treatment of acute otitis media in children].

This controlled prospective study included 40 children (18 boys and 22 girls) hospitalized for the treatment of acute suppurative otitis media. Mean age of the patients was 4.5 years. Their condition was evaluated after cessation of purulent discharge and closure of perforation while acoustic impedancometry still revealed the presence of exudate in the tympanum. The treatment included administration of nasal decongestants, systemic antibacterial therapy, sanation of the nasal and pharyngonasal cavities by transposition or puncture of maxillary sinuses. Some patients (study group) were given sinupret in age-adjusted doses. Signs of exudates disappeared within a mean of 4.2 days after the onset of therapy compared with 7.7 days in the control group (p<0.01). It is concluded that the inclusion of sinupret in the combined treatment of acute suppurative otitis media promotes rapid and efficacious sanation of the tympanic cavity and hearing restoration.

The common cold.

1) Most colds are due to viruses and resolve spontaneously after a few days. Available drugs do not modify the course of a viral cold; 2) Some drugs used to treat colds carry a risk of serious adverse effects. This includes nasal sprays, especially vasoconstrictors such as pseudo-ephedrine and, in young children, menthol, camphor, and terpene derivatives.

A combination of cetirizine and pseudoephedrine has therapeutic benefits when compared to single drug treatment in allergic rhinitis.

UNLABELLED: Antihistamines and nasal decongestants are well-established therapeutics in allergic rhinitis. However, no data are available which directly compare the effect size of the single substances with their combination in a single study including placebo (PLA) treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a combination of cetirizine (CET) and pseudoephedrine (PSE) and to compare it to treatment with CET or PSE alone and to PLA during grass pollen allergen challenge in an environmental challenge chamber (ECC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study the effect of a combination of 10 mg CET with 120 mg PSE (CET + PSE) versus CET or PSE alone or PLA on symptoms, nasal flow, and nasal secretions was investigated in 49 patients with intermittent allergic rhinitis. Subjects underwent four 6-h pollen exposures in an ECC with administration of the drugs after 2 h. RESULTS: The induction of nasal symptoms, nasal secretion and nasal obstruction (measured as nasal flow) during the first 2 h of pollen exposure was highly reproducible at the 4 consecutive exposures. The symptom of nasal obstruction was significantly reduced after treatment with CET + PSE compared to the treatment with CET or PSE alone or PLA (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the combination treatment significantly reduced the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and visual analogue scale score (VAS) compared to the single treatments or PLA. Nasal flow was significantly increased after treatment with CET + PSE and PSE and nasal secretions were significantly reduced by CET + PSE and CET without significant additional improvement of the combination therapy. CONCLUSION: The combination treatment with CET and PSE is more effective than treatment with single substances in subjects with allergic rhinitis.

[Rhinosinusitis: etiopathogenesis and antimicrobial therapy, an update]. / Le rinosinusiti: aggiornamenti in tema di eziopatogenesi e antibioticoterapia.

The aim of the current study is to underline once again the etiopathogenetic aspects of rhinosinusitis, by a revision of most significative and updated study in otorhinolaryngologic literature to guide the right management of this disease. The focal role of ostio-meatal complex is reported; epidemiological data on old and emergent pathogens are described together with their role on acute or chronic or recurrent rhinosinusitis pathogenesis. According to recent evidence based medicine documents, diagnostic criteria and methodologies are reported to control surgical and medical long-term results. On the bases of the current etiopathogenetic concepts, medical treatment is suggested. The central role of medical management is based on the choice of antimicrobial treatment. The fundamental concepts on pharmacocinetic and pharmacodinamic are reported, togther with updated data on antimicrobial resistance.

Decongestion test in patients with allergic rhinitis: functional evaluation of nasal airflow.

BACKGROUND: Rhinomanometry measures nasal airflow that is frequently impaired in allergic rhinitis. Decongestion tests consist of spraying an intranasal vasoconstrictor drug to evaluate the reversibility of nasal airflow limitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decongestion test in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) caused by pollen sensitization, perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) caused by sensitization to perennial allergens only, or mixed allergic rhinitis (MAR) caused by sensitization to both allergens. METHODS: One hundred twenty-three subjects (112 men and 11 women, mean age, 22.9 +/- 5.7 years) were studied; 40 subjects had PAR, 43 subjects had MAR, and 40 subjects had SAR. Total symptom score (including: nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal obstruction) was assessed. Rhinomanometry and decongestion tests were performed in all subjects. RESULTS: Nasal symptom severity was superimposable in the three groups (p was not significant). After decongestion tests, an increase of nasal airflow and a decrease of nasal resistance was shown in PAR (p < 0.01), MAR (p < 0.001), and SAR subjects (p < 0.001). The intergroup analysis showed that SAR patients had less reversibility than PAR (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study provides the first evidence of the different response to decongestion tests, taking into consideration the causal allergens.

Topical anaesthesia before nasendoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of co-phenylcaine compared with lignocaine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative effectiveness of co-phenylcaine (lignocaine 5% with phenylephrine) and lignocaine 5% sprays when administered prior to rigid nasendoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized, double blind controlled study. SETTING: Teaching hospital otolaryngology unit. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty patients requiring routine outpatient rigid nasendoscopy were administered five puffs of either co-phenylcaine or lignocaine 5% spray which had been randomly assigned to either the first or the second visit. Ten minutes later nasendoscopy was performed. Immediately after nasendoscopy the ease of performance of the procedure and the quality of the view achieved was rated on a visual analogue scale by the endoscopist and the patients recorded the level of pain experienced on a visual analogue scale. Two weeks later, the patients returned for a repeat nasendoscopy, receiving the alternate spray. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Ease of performance and quality of view of achieved by endoscopists and pain experienced by patients, both measured with visual analogue scales. RESULTS: The ease of passage of the endoscope and quality of the view obtained was found to be greater after the administration of co-phenylcaine [visual analogue scores 84 (95% CI: 80-89) than after lignocaine and 77 (95% CI: 73-81) (P < 0.01)]. The two sprays produced similar levels of topical anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Nasendoscopy can be performed with minimal discomfort after the administration of either co-phenylcaine or lignocaine 5% sprays. The vasoconstricting action of co-phenylcaine increases the ease of passage of the endoscope and quality of the view obtained by the endoscopist.

Alternative versus conventional treatment strategy in uncomplicated acute otitis media in children: a prospective, open, controlled parallel-group comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence from clinical trials questions the benefit-risk ratio of first-line antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute otitis media in childhood. Alternative treatment strategies are very popular but have not been the subject of larger controlled clinical trials. This trial compares an alternative with a conventional treatment strategy for acute otitis media. METHODS AND PATIENTS: 390 children aged 1-10 years presenting with uncomplicated acute otitis media participated in a prospective, open, non-randomized, controlled, parallel-group study. According to self-assignment of investigators, children were treated either conventionally (free combinations of decongestant nose drops, mucolytics, analgesics and antibiotics) or alternatively with Otovowen (fixed combination of plant-based tinctures and homeopathic potencies), supplemented by conventional medications when considered necessary. RESULTS: Alternatively treated patients (n = 192) had significantly less severe otoscopic findings and clinical symptom ratings at baseline than children treated in conventional centers (n = 193). Patients cared for by conventional therapists took more antibiotics (80.5% vs. 14.4%; chi2-test, p < 0.001) and analgesics (66.8% vs. 53.2%; chi2-test, p = 0.007). Times to recovery were 5.3 +/- 2.4 and 5.1 +/- 2.2 days for alternative and conventional treatment, respectively. Odds ratios (OR) with a lower limit of 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) were 0.98 (0.76), 0.95 (0.73) and 0.88 (0.69) for results adjusted to baseline otoscopy, pain and symptom score, respectively (Cox-Mantel test). Absence from school or preschool nursery was 1.7 days in both groups; ORs (CI) were 1.00 (0.76), 0.96 (0.73) and 1.04 (0.80). Noninferiority of alternative treatment (CI limit of OR above 0.696) was not proven for pain resolution (-5.2 vs. -5.8 score points); OR (CI) were 0.87 (0.68), 1.15 (0.87) and 0.74 (0.58). Alternative treatment was judged both by doctors (Mann-Whitney estimator with 2-sided 95% CI 0.41 (0.35-0.47)) and parents (0.42 (0.36-0.48)), to be significantly better tolerated than conventional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care management of uncomplicated acute otitis media in childhood, an alternative treatment strategy based on the natural medicine, Otovowen may substantially reduce the use of antibiotics without disadvantage to the clinical outcome.

A comparison of cocaine and 'co-phenylcaine' local anaesthesia in flexible nasendoscopy.

Cocaine is widely used as a local anaesthetic in the nose. However, it is potentially toxic, a known drug of addiction, and its spray delivery devices can theoretically transfer infection. This two-part study investigates a less toxic alternative, 5% lidocaine and 0.5% phenylephrine ('co-phenylcaine') solution, presented in a disposable spray. In the first part, the efficacy of co-phenylcaine was assessed in 25 healthy volunteers. Serial acoustic rhinometry showed a significant, sustained nasal decongestion after co-phenylcaine administration. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in response to a painful nasal stimulus confirmed a significant anaesthetic effect. In the second part, co-phenylcaine was compared with 10% cocaine spray in a randomized double-blind trial in 74 patients undergoing out-patient transnasal fibrescopic laryngoscopy. VAS pain ratings and nasal inspiratory peak flow recordings showed no difference between the two solutions. No adverse effects were noted. It is concluded that co-phenylcaine is an excellent alternative to cocaine nasal spray.

Rinitis en la edad infanto-juvenil / Rhinitis in children and adolescent

La rinitis es un síndrome producido por la inflamación de la mucosa de las fosas nasales cuya expresión clínica es la congestión nasal, estornudos e hipersecreción seromucosa; su origen puede ser alérgico o no alérgico.En la rinitis alérgica el mecanismo inmunopatológico está determinado por el tipo I de hipersensibilidad mediada por IgE; los alérgenos más frecuentes son los pneumoalérgenos siendo de menos importancia los trofoalérgenos. Las manifestaciones clínicas pueden tener presentación estacional -principalmente en la temporada de polinización- o perenne, que no presenta variación estacional y tienen síntomas todo el año.En la rinitis no alérgica no existe reacción de hipersensibilidad mediada por IgE y comprende un numeroso grupo de afecciones de origen inflamatorio y no inflamatorio.El tratamiento de la rinitis alérgica consiste en medidas de desalergenización, diversas clases de fármacos y terapéutica de hiposensibilización con vacunas alergénicas.Asociaciones comórbidas (asma, conjuntivitis, sinusitis, otitis...) acompañan con frecuencia a las rinitis alérgicas (AU)