Review of evidence supporting the use of nasal corticosteroid irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze published reports on the efficacy and safety of CSI in CRS and evaluate the clinical implications of current gaps in evidence. Corticosteroid irrigation (CSI) is commonly used for management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps; however, such use is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). DATA SOURCES: Publications were obtained through PubMed searches through January 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Searches were conducted using 2 terms: "chronic rhinosinusitis" or "nasal polyps" as the first term and "corticosteroid irrigation," "steroid nasal lavage," or "sinus rinse" as the second term. We reviewed relevant, peer-reviewed literature (19 original research [9 controlled, 10 uncontrolled trials], 7 reviews, and 1 meta-analysis) reporting safety and efficacy of CSI in patients with CRS. RESULTS: Studies were difficult to compare because they used a variety of solution volumes (60 mL to 125 mL per nostril), corticosteroid agents (budesonide, betamethasone, mometasone, or fluticasone), corticosteroid doses, preparation protocols (by compounding pharmacy or by patient), and administration (frequency, time of day, body positioning). It is difficult to determine which parameters might substantially influence clinical effects because studies were generally small, showed marginal benefits, and rarely assessed safety. To date, no studies evaluating CSI have shown statistically significant differences in a type-I error-controlled primary end point over any comparator, possibly owing to small sample sizes. CONCLUSION: Designing more robust clinical trials may help determine whether CSI is a valid treatment option. Until more evidence supporting CSI use exists, health care professionals should strongly consider choosing FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of CRS.

NAVIGATE II: Randomized, double-blind trial of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone for nasal polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and sometimes complicated by nasal polyps (NPs). Corticosteroid nasal sprays are often unsatisfactory because they are ineffective at delivering medication to high/deep sites of inflammation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess whether an exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) capable of high/deep drug deposition improves outcomes. METHODS: Patients (n = 323) 18 years and older with moderate-to-severe congestion and NPs were randomized to twice-daily EDS-FLU (93, 186, or 372 µg) or exhalation delivery system (EDS)-placebo for 24 weeks (16 double-blind plus 8 open-label when all received 372 µg). Coprimary end points were change in nasal congestion/obstruction at 4 weeks and summed bilateral polyp grade at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included symptoms, polyp elimination, and functioning. RESULTS: EDS-FLU was superior on both coprimary end points (P < .001 vs EDS-placebo, all doses). Mean polyp grade improved continuously through week 24 (P < .009, all comparisons), with polyps eliminated on at least 1 side in approximately 25% of patients at week 24 versus 8.7% with EDS-placebo (P ≤ .014, all comparisons). Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test scores also improved significantly versus those in patients receiving EDS-placebo (-21.1 to -21.4 vs -11.7 at week 16, P < .05 all doses). At the end of the double-blind period, EDS-FLU (all doses) significantly improved all 4 defining disease symptoms. In most patients (68%), those receiving EDS-FLU reported "much" or "very much" improvement. The number of patients eligible for surgery decreased by 62%-67%. The safety profile was similar to that reported in prior trials evaluating conventional corticosteroid nasal sprays in comparable populations. CONCLUSION: EDS-FLU produces clinically and statistically significant improvement in all 4 diagnostically defining disease symptoms, polyp grade, and quality of life in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with NPs.

Safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of a new 10% liquid intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in patients with primary immunodeficiency.

INTRODUCTION: An investigational 10% liquid intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) was studied in 63 patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID) at 15 study sites. METHODS: Patients were treated every 3 or 4 weeks with 254-1029 mg/kg/infusion of IVIG. RESULTS: Overall, Biotest-IVIG infusions were well tolerated. The proportion of infusions that were associated with adverse events during infusion, and up to 72 h after infusion, including those unrelated to study product, was 27.7% with an upper 95% confidence limit ≤30.6%. Two serious bacterial infections (SBIs) were observed resulting in a serious bacterial infection rate of 0.035 per person per year and an upper one-sided 99% confidence limit of ≤0.136 SBI/patient/year. The number of days of work or school missed due to infection were relatively low at 2.28 days/patient/year. Two patients were hospitalized for infection producing a rate of 0.21 hospitalization days/patient/year. The IgG half-life was approximately 30 days with variation among individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic parameters of specific antibody activities were essentially the same as those of total IgG. Biotest-IVIG is safe and effective in the treatment of PID.