Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Plain Language Summary: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

The Use of Structured, Active, In-Person Learning to Connect Didactic Content with Clinical Scenarios in a Senior Level Nursing Leadership Course.

BACKGROUND: The senior leadership course at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing includes both didactic and clinical components. The didactic portion delves into leadership topics and during clinical rotations the students witness nurses and patients navigate through complicated and emotional patient care experiences. METHOD: Structured, active, in-class learning (SAIL) activities in a classroom were used to connect didactic content with clinical scenarios. Different specialty-related clinical scenarios were presented to the students, and they were allocated a certain amount of time for discussion in small groups before sharing their outcomes with the whole group (think-pair-share). RESULTS: Student evaluations showed that the percentage of students who rated each session as excellent increased each semester and feedback remained overwhelmingly positive; the consistently identified area for improvement is the timing and we plan to lengthen the sessions to address that. CONCLUSION: Our team discovered that by shifting most of our simulation scenarios to SAIL, we provided the students with ample opportunities to speak in a dialectically rich environment about clinical scenarios while maintaining the interrelation between theory and practice. [J Nurs Educ. 2023;62(4):257-262.].

Accuracy of computer-assisted navigation: significant augmentation by facial recognition software.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, image guidance navigation has been used with increasing frequency as an adjunct during sinus and skull base surgery. These devices commonly utilize surface registration, where varying pressure of the registration probe and loss of contact with the face during the skin tracing process can lead to registration inaccuracies, and the number of registration points incorporated is necessarily limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of novel facial recognition software for image guidance registration. METHODS: Consecutive adults undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) were prospectively studied. Patients underwent image guidance registration via both conventional surface registration and facial recognition software. The accuracy of both registration processes were measured at the head of the middle turbinate (MTH), middle turbinate axilla (MTA), anterior wall of sphenoid sinus (SS), and nasal tip (NT). RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included in this investigation. Facial recognition was accurate to within a mean of 0.47 mm at the MTH, 0.33 mm at the MTA, 0.39 mm at the SS, and 0.36 mm at the NT. Facial recognition was more accurate than surface registration at the MTH by an average of 0.43 mm (p = 0.002), at the MTA by an average of 0.44 mm (p < 0.001), and at the SS by an average of 0.40 mm (p < 0.001). The integration of facial recognition software did not adversely affect registration time. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, automated facial recognition software significantly improved the accuracy of image guidance registration when compared to conventional surface registration.

Identification and treatment of nontuberculous Mycobacterium sinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of atypical Mycobacterium identified by routine sinus cultures and review the recent literature on management. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed in a tertiary academic hospital. A retrospective case series of all patients treated with atypical Mycobacterium rhinosinusitis from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Cases were identified from a prospective database of 676 endoscopically guided sinus cultures. RESULTS: Eight patients with atypical Mycobacterium sinusitis were identified. There were five women and three men. Median age was 63 years (range, 55-71 years). All patients had prior endoscopic sinus surgery a median of 14 months (range, 0.8-162 months) before a positive culture result. Species identified included Mycobacterium chelonae, Mycobacterium fortuitum, Mycobacterium abscessus, and Mycobacterium avium complex. Chief presenting symptoms were postnasal discharge (88%), followed by decreased smell and taste (63%), and facial pain/pressure (38%). Patients were treated based on sensitivity results with long-term oral antibiotics for at least 2 months based on improvements on endoscopy. Median follow-up for patients in this study after treatment was 1.3 years (range, 0.6-4.6 years). CONCLUSION: In this study, atypical mycobacteria were identified in <1% of sinus cultures. Prolonged, culture-directed antibiotic therapy remains the mainstay of treatment when there is clinical evidence of infection. Previous endoscopic sinus surgery may represent a risk factor for colonization and subsequent infection. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal treatment duration and management to prevent disease relapse.

Changing practice models in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: the role for collaborative practice.

The increased complexity of medicine, the imperative of reducing health care costs, and the goals of improving quality and patient satisfaction require that we rethink current models of practice. Such reevaluation will receive additional impetus from workforce changes within medicine and the specialty. Furthermore, as chronic disorder care becomes more complex, it may increasingly be provided within a specialty setting. Our goal is to stimulate discussion regarding the potential for alternative health care delivery models within the specialty in the face of predicted workforce shortages and the impetus toward health care reform. A collaborative practice model utilizing midlevel health care providers increases productivity and patient satisfaction and provides the potential to deliver an exceptionally high level of care for chronic disorders when such care is sufficiently complex to require specialty management.

Olfactory dysfunction in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction in patients with allergic rhinitis has long been thought to be secondary to coexisting chronic rhinosinusitis and polyposis with obstruction of airflow over the olfactory epithelium. Recent evidence suggests that the allergic inflammatory infiltrate may itself affect olfaction in the absence of mucosal hypertrophy. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a study to determine olfactory function in patients with allergic rhinitis in the presence and absence of chronic sinusitis. METHODS: Fifty-one subjects with symptoms of rhinitis who presented for allergy testing were administered the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. In addition each patient underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning of the sinuses. RESULTS: Eighty percent of subjects were allergic. Subjects with allergic rhinitis and no evidence of sinusitis scored on average in the 30th percentile (95% CI 20-40th percentile) on objective olfactory testing compared to age- and gender-specific norms. Half the allergic patients were classified as normosmic, while half had some degree of hyposmia. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that even in the absence of mucosal disease on CT scan, a significant subset of patients with allergic rhinitis will exhibit hyposmia, mostly to a mild or moderate degree. The pathophysiology and potential treatments for olfactory loss in these patients should be further explored.

Prevalence of biofilm-forming bacteria in chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, biofilms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We sought to determine the prevalence of biofilm-forming cultures obtained from patients with CRS and clinical factors that may contribute to biofilm formation. METHODS: Endoscopically guided sinonasal cultures were obtained in duplicate from CRS patients with evidence of mucopurulence. Bacterial swabs were sent for microbiological characterization and were simultaneously evaluated for biofilm-forming capacity by a modified Calgary Biofilm Detection Assay. Biofilm formation was based on concomitant values of biofilm-forming Pseudomonas aeruginosa O1 (PAO1) (positive control) and non-biofilm-forming mutants sad-31 (type IV pili) and sad-36 (flagella K; negative control). Samples, with growth greater than the sad-31 mutant, were designated as biofilm formers. RESULTS: Sinonasal cultures were obtained from 157 consecutive patients (83 female patients) over a 4-month period. Forty-five samples (28.6%) showed biofilm formation. Among patients with a prior history of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), 30.7% (n = 42) showed biofilm growth. For patients naive to surgical intervention (n = 20), only 15% showed biofilm formation. A positive, statistically significant correlation existed between biofilm formation and number of prior FESS procedures. Polymicrobial cultures, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and/or Staphylococcus aureus comprised 71% of samples. Chi-squared analysis showed an association with prior infections, but not with any pharmacologic therapy or comorbidies. CONCLUSION: We show a high percentage of CRS patients (28.6%) whose sinonasal mucopurulence has biofilm-forming capacity. Postsurgical patients had a high prevalence of biofilm-forming bacteria, a possible reflection of the severe nature of their disease. Additional studies are warranted.

Temporal lobe encephalocele appearing as a lytic lesion of the skull base and pterygoid process.

Meningoencephalocele is an uncommon condition in which brain tissue, meninges, or both protrude through a defect in the anterior cranial fossa and into the ethmoid sinus or nasal cavity. Much less often, brain tissue, meninges, or both protrude through a defect in the middle cranial fossa and into the sphenoid sinus. We report an unusual case of a middle fossa encephalocele that appeared as a lytic lesion of the skull base. The patient was treated successfully via a unique endoscopic transpterygoid approach--that is, an endoscopic approach through the maxillary sinus and pterygopalatine fossa and into the pterygoid process.