Topical or oral antibiotics in childhood acute otitis media and ear discharge: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidance suggests oral antibiotics can be considered for children with acute otitis media (AOM) and ear discharge, but there is an absence of evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops. AIM: To establish whether antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops are non-inferior to oral antibiotics in children with AOM and ear discharge. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open randomized controlled non-inferiority trial set in Dutch primary care. METHODS: Children were randomized to hydrocortisone-bacitracin-colistin eardrops (five drops, three times per day in the discharging ear(s)) or amoxicillin suspension (50 mg per kilogram of body weight per day, divided over three doses administered orally) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of children with resolution of ear pain and fever at day 3. RESULTS: Between December 2017 and March 2023, 58 of the planned 350 children were recruited due to slow accrual for various reasons. Children assigned to eardrops (n = 26) had lower resolution rates of ear pain and fever at 3 days compared to those receiving oral antibiotics (n = 31): 42% vs 65%; adjusted risk difference 20.3%, 95% confidence interval -5.3% to 41.9%), longer parent-reported ear discharge (6 vs 3 days; P = .04), and slightly higher mean ear pain scores (Likert scale 0-6) over days 1-3 (2.1 vs 1.4, P = .02), but received fewer oral antibiotic courses in 3months (11 for 25 children vs 33 for 30 children), and had less GI upset and rash (12% vs 32% and 8% vs 16%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Early termination stopped us from determining non-inferiority of antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops. Our limited data, requiring confirmation, suggest that oral antibiotics may be more effective than antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops in resolving symptoms and shortening the duration of ear discharge.

Managing comorbid cognitive impairment and hearing loss in older adults: a UK survey of audiology and memory services.

BACKGROUND: midlife hearing loss is a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia. Addressing comorbid hearing loss and cognitive impairment in services for older adults may offer opportunities to reduce dementia risk. OBJECTIVE: to explore current practice and views amongst UK professionals regarding hearing assessment and care in memory clinics and cognitive assessment and care in hearing aid clinics. METHODS: national survey study. Between July 2021 and March 2022, we distributed the online survey link via email and via QR codes at conferences to professionals working in National Health Service (NHS) memory services and audiologists working in NHS and private adult audiology services. We present descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 135 professionals working in NHS memory services and 156 audiologists (68% NHS, 32% private sector) responded. Of those working in memory services, 79% estimate that >25% of their patients have significant hearing difficulties; 98% think it useful to ask about hearing difficulties and 91% do so; 56% think it useful to perform a hearing test in clinic but only 4% do so. Of audiologists, 36% estimate that >25% of their older adult patients have significant memory problems; 90% think it useful to perform cognitive assessments, but only 4% do so. Main barriers cited are lack of training, time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: although professionals working in memory and audiology services felt addressing this comorbidity would be useful, current practice varies and does not generally address it. These results inform future research into operational solutions to integrating memory and audiology services.

COVID-VU - ENT-UK national survey of flexible nasendoscopy in the upper aerodigestive tract amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Flexible nasendoscopy (FNE) is an invaluable multi-disciplinary tool for upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) examination. During the COVID-19 pandemic concerns were raised that FNE had the potential of generating aerosols resulting in human cross-contamination when performed on SARS-COV2 carriers. In the UK, and other European countries, national guidelines were issued restricting FNE to essential cases. We surveyed ENT-UK members and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) members to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (first peak) on FNE practice in the UK. METHODS: An observational internet-based survey constructed in accordance to the CHERRIES checklist and setup in SurveyMonkey of FNE practice amongst UK-based ENT surgeons and speech and language therapists in community clinics, the outpatient department, inpatient wards, ICU, emergency department and operating theatres (through the NHS and private sector) prior to, during and following the first COVID-19 wave in the UK. RESULTS: 314 responses collected (24% response rate), 82% from ENT clinicians, 17% from SLTs and 1% from other allied healthcare professionals. Overall, there has been a large reduction in the volume and indications for FNE during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic with limited recovery by mid-August 2020. Cancer and airway assessments were impacted less. A wide range of FNE protocols influenced by local factors are reported, varying in endoscope preference, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and sterilization methods. Where dedicated Aerosol Generating Procedure (AGP) rooms were unavailable, clinicians resorted to window opening and variable room "down-time" between patients. Endoscope preference reflected availability and user familiarity, ENT trainees favoring the use of single-use video endoscopes. CONCLUSION: Despite national guidance, local practice of FNE remains interrupted and highly variable in the UK. A collaborative inter-disciplinary approach is required to re-introduce FNE safely in volume across healthcare settings, re-establishing timely endoscopic diagnosis and pre-pandemic levels of patient care.

Incidence and management of acute otitis media in adults: a primary care-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although primarily considered a childhood disease, acute otitis media (AOM) also occurs in adults. Data on the burden of this condition in adults are, however, scarce. OBJECTIVE: To explore the primary care incidence and current management of AOM in adults. METHODS: All patients aged 15 and older included in the routine health care database of the Julius General Practitioners' Network were followed from 2015 to 2018 (contributing to a total of 1 261 575 person-years). We extracted data on AOM episodes, AOM-related consultations, comorbidities, and antibiotic and analgesic prescriptions. RESULTS: Five thousand three hundred and fifty-eight patients experienced one or more AOM episodes (total number of AOM episodes: 6667; mean 1.2 per patient). The overall AOM incidence was 5.3/1000 person-years and was fairly stable over the study period. Incidence was particularly high in atopic patients (7.3/1000 person-years) and declined with age (from 7.1 in patients 15-39 years of age to 2.7/1000 person-years in those aged 64 years and older). Oral antibiotics, predominantly amoxicillin, were prescribed in 46%, and topical antibiotics in 21% of all episodes. CONCLUSION: Over the past years, the incidence of AOM in adults in primary care has been stable. Oral antibiotic prescription rates resemble those in children with AOM, whereas a remarkably high topical antibiotic prescription rate was observed. Future prognostic research should inform on the need and feasibility of prospective studies into the best management strategy in this condition.

Cost of childhood acute otitis media in primary care in the Netherlands: economic analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is among the most common paediatric conditions managed in primary care. Most recent estimates of the cost of AOM date from a decade ago and lack a full societal perspective. We therefore explored the societal cost of childhood AOM in the Netherlands within the setting of a trial comparing the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at educating general practitioners (GPs) about pain management in AOM compared to usual care. METHODS: Economic analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted between February 2015 and May 2018 in 37 practices (94 GPs). In total, 224 children with AOM were included of which 223 (99%) completed the trial (intervention: n = 94; control: n = 129). The cost of AOM due to health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity losses by parent caregivers were retrieved from study diaries and primary care electronic health records, during 28-day follow-up. We calculated mean cost (€ and $) per AOM episode per patient with standard deviations (SD, in €) regardless of study group assignment because there was no clinical effect of the trial intervention. In sensitivity analysis, we calculated cost in the intervention and usual care group, after exclusion of extreme outliers. RESULTS: Mean total AOM cost per patient were €565.93 or $638.78 (SD €1071.01); nearly 90% of these costs were due to productivity losses experienced by parents. After exclusion of outliers, AOM cost was €526.70 or $594.50 (SD €987.96) and similar in the intervention and usual care groups: €516.10 or $582.53 (SD €949.69) and €534.55 or $603.36 (SD €920.55) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At €566 or $639 per episode, societal cost of AOM is higher than previously known and mainly driven by productivity losses by children's parents. Considering its high incidence, AOM poses a significant economic burden that extends beyond direct medical costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register no. NTR4920: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4920 .

What health policy makers need to know about mismatches between public perceptions of disease risk, prevalence and severity: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess people's perceptions of their personal risk, population prevalence and perceived severity in relation to three key health conditions (cancer, heart disease and hearing loss), gauge the size of any misperceptions, and identify correlates of such misperceptions. DESIGN: This study was a cross-sectional survey. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 10,401 adults representative of the UK population were participated in the study. RESULTS: Clear majorities of people incorrectly believe that they are at greater personal risk of cancer (>75%), that cancer is more prevalent in the population (>50%) and that cancer is more disabling (>65%), than either heart disease or hearing loss. In turn, people consistently regard their personal risk of hearing loss, the population prevalence of hearing loss and the severity of hearing loss as lower than either cancer or heart disease. Multiple regression analyses showed inconsistent patterns of relationships between people's beliefs, sociodemographic characteristics and their health behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy in beliefs about cancer, heart disease and hearing loss is low, and the relationships between these beliefs, their potential antecedents and consequences are complex. Policy makers should ensure close adherence to evidence or risk-making decisions that are costly both in financial terms and in terms of suboptimal population subjective well-being.

Correction to: Respiratory tract infection-related healthcare utilisation in children with Down's syndrome.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained an omission.

Respiratory tract infection-related healthcare utilisation in children with Down's syndrome.

PURPOSE: Children with Down's syndrome (DS) are prone to respiratory tract infections (RTIs) due to anatomical variation, immune system immaturity and comorbidities. However, evidence on RTI-related healthcare utilisation, especially in primary care, is incomplete. In this retrospective cohort study, we use routinely collected primary and secondary care data to quantify RTI-related healthcare utilisation in children with DS and matched controls without DS. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 992 children with DS and 4874 matched controls attending English general practices and hospitals as identified in Clinical disease research using LInked Bespoke studies and Electronic health Records (CALIBER) from 1997 to 2010. Poisson regression was used to calculate consultation, hospitalisation and prescription rates, and rate ratios. Wald test was used to compare risk of admission following consultation. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare length of stay by RTI type and time-to-hospitalisation. RESULTS: RTI-related healthcare utilisation is significantly higher in children with DS than in controls in terms of GP consultations (adjusted RR 1.73; 95% CI 1.62-1.84), hospitalisations (adjusted RR 5.70; 95% CI 4.82-6.73), and antibiotic prescribing (adjusted RR 2.34; 95% CI 2.19-2.49). Two percent of children with DS presenting for an RTI-related GP consultation were subsequently admitted for an RTI-related hospitalisation, compared to 0.7% in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Children with DS have higher rates of GP consultations, hospitalisations and antibiotic prescribing compared to controls. This poses a significant burden on families. Further research is recommended to characterise healthcare behaviours and clinical decision-making, to optimise care for this at risk group.

Impact of Repeated Influenza Immunization on Respiratory Illness in Children With Preexisting Medical Conditions.

PURPOSE: Annual influenza immunization in medical risk groups is recommended in many countries. Recent evidence suggests that repeated inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) immunization throughout childhood may impair long-term immunity against influenza. We assessed whether prior immunization altered the effect of IIV in children with preexisting medical conditions on primary care-diagnosed respiratory illness (RI) episodes during the influenza season. METHODS: Electronic records of IIV-immunized children who met the criteria for annual IIV immunization according to Dutch guidelines were extracted from a primary care database from 2004 to 2015. For each year, we collected information on IIV immunization status, primary care-attended RI episodes (including influenza-like illness, acute RI, and asthma exacerbation), and potential confounders. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the association between prior IIV and occurrence of at least one RI episode during the influenza season, with "current year immunized but without IIV history" as reference group. RESULTS: A total of 4,183 children (follow-up duration: 11,493 child-years) were IIV immunized at least once. Adjusted estimates showed lower odds for RI in current year-immunized children with prior IIV compared with those without (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.78 for "current year immunized and one IIV in previous 2 years"; OR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.07 for "current year immunized and ≥2 IIVs in previous 3 years, including prior year"). CONCLUSION: Repeated IIV immunization in children with preexisting medical conditions has no negative impact on, and may even increase, long-term protection against RI episodes diagnosed during the influenza season in primary care.

Pain management in acute otitis media: a qualitative study of parents' views and expectations.

BACKGROUND: For unclarified reasons, parents tend to be cautious about administering analgesics to their children, potentially leading to suboptimal management of AOM symptoms. We aim to understand parents' views and expectations of pain management in acute otitis media (AOM) in children. METHODS: Qualitative study alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial (PIM-POM study) aimed at optimising pain management in childhood AOM. We purposefully sampled 14 parents of children diagnosed with AOM by their GP, who were recruited to the trial between November 2017 and May 2018. Semi-structured interviews were held at home in the first two weeks after trial enrollment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Parents experienced difficulties in recognising earache and other symptoms of an ear infection. They consulted the GP for a diagnosis, for reassurance and for management advice. Parents shared that, prior to consultation, they had insufficient knowledge of the benefits of correctly dosed pain medication at regularly scheduled intervals. Parents valued the GP's advice on pain management, and were happy to accept pain medication as standalone therapy, provided that the GP explained why antibiotics would not be needed. Parents' views and expectations of pain management in AOM were shaped by previous experiences of AOM within their family; those with a positive experience of pain medication are more likely to use it in subsequent AOM episodes. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of children with AOM consult the GP to help cope with uncertainties in recognising symptoms of AOM, and to receive management advice. It is important that GPs are aware of parents' lack of understanding of the role of pain medication in managing AOM, and that they address this during the consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, identifier NTR4920 (registration date: 19 December 2014).

A mixed-methods study of the management of hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children with Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To scope current service provision across England for management of otitis media with effusion and hearing loss in children with Down syndrome; to explore professional decision-making about managing otitis media with effusion and hearing loss; and to explore patient and public views on the direction of future research. DESIGN: Mixed methods including a service evaluation of NHS clinical practice through a structured telephone survey; a qualitative study of professional decision-making with in-depth interviews collected and analysed using grounded theory methods; patient/public involvement consultations. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one audiology services in England took part in the evaluation; 10 professionals participated in the qualitative study; 21 family members, 10 adults with Down syndrome and representatives from two charities contributed to the consultations. RESULTS: There was variation across services in the frequency of routine hearing surveillance, approaches to managing conductive hearing loss in infancy and provision of hearing aids and grommets. There was variation in how professionals describe their decision-making, reflecting individual treatment preferences, differing approaches to professional remit and institutional factors. The consultations identified that research should focus on improving practical support for managing the condition and supporting decision-making about interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is system-level variation in the provision of services and individual-level variation in how professionals make clinical decisions. As a consequence, there is inequity of access to hearing health care for children with Down syndrome. Future research should focus on developing core outcomes for research and care, and on improving decision support for families.

A trial of treatment for acute otorrhea in children with tympanostomy tubes.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidance for the management of acute otorrhea in children with tympanostomy tubes is based on limited evidence from trials comparing oral antibiotic agents with topical antibiotics. METHODS: In this open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 230 children, 1 to 10 years of age, who had acute tympanostomy-tube otorrhea to receive hydrocortisone-bacitracin-colistin eardrops (76 children) or oral amoxicillin-clavulanate suspension (77) or to undergo initial observation (77). The primary outcome was the presence of otorrhea, as assessed otoscopically, 2 weeks after study-group assignment. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the initial otorrhea episode, the total number of days of otorrhea and the number of otorrhea recurrences during 6 months of follow-up, quality of life, complications, and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Antibiotic-glucocorticoid eardrops were superior to oral antibiotics and initial observation for all outcomes. At 2 weeks, 5% of children treated with antibiotic-glucocorticoid eardrops had otorrhea, as compared with 44% of those treated with oral antibiotics (risk difference, -39 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -51 to -26) and 55% of those treated with initial observation (risk difference, -49 percentage points; 95% CI, -62 to -37). The median duration of the initial episode of otorrhea was 4 days for children treated with antibiotic-glucocorticoid eardrops versus 5 days for those treated with oral antibiotics (P<0.001) and 12 days for those who were assigned to initial observation (P<0.001). Treatment-related adverse events were mild, and no complications of otitis media, including local cellulitis, perichondritis, mastoiditis, and intracranial complications, were reported at 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic-glucocorticoid eardrops were more effective than oral antibiotics and initial observation in children with tympanostomy tubes who had uncomplicated acute otorrhea. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR1481.).

Addressing resistance to antibiotics in systematic reviews of antibiotic interventions.

Antibiotics are among the most important interventions in healthcare. Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics threatens the effectiveness of treatment. Systematic reviews of antibiotic treatments often do not address resistance to antibiotics even when data are available in the original studies. This omission creates a skewed view, which emphasizes short-term efficacy and ignores the long-term consequences to the patient and other people. We offer a framework for addressing antibiotic resistance in systematic reviews. We suggest that the data on background resistance in the original trials should be reported and taken into account when interpreting results. Data on emergence of resistance (whether in the body reservoirs or in the bacteria causing infection) are important outcomes. Emergence of resistance should be taken into account when interpreting the evidence on antibiotic treatment in randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews.

Betahistine for symptoms of vertigo.

BACKGROUND: Vertigo is a symptom in which individuals experience a false sensation of movement. This type of dizziness is thought to originate in the inner ear labyrinth or its neural connections. It is a commonly experienced symptom and can cause significant problems with carrying out normal activities. Betahistine is a drug that may work by improving blood flow to the inner ear. This review examines whether betahistine is more effective than a placebo at treating symptoms of vertigo from different causes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of betahistine in patients with symptoms of vertigo from different causes. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The date of the search was 21 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of betahistine versus placebo in patients of any age with vertigo from any neurotological diagnosis in any settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with reduction in vertigo symptoms (considering together the intensity, frequency and duration those symptoms). MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies, with a total of 1025 participants; 12 studies were published (567 patients) and five were unpublished (458 patients). Sixteen studies including 953 people compared betahistine with placebo. All studies with analysable data lasted three months or less. The majority were at high risk of bias, but in some the risk of bias was unclear. One study, at high risk of bias, included 72 people with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and compared betahistine with placebo; all patients also had particle repositioning manoeuvres. The studies varied considerably in terms of types of participants, their diagnoses, the dose of betahistine and the length of time it was taken for, the study methods and the way any improvement in vertigo symptoms was measured. Using the GRADE system, we judged the quality of evidence overall to be low for two outcomes (proportion of patients with improvement and proportion with adverse events).Pooled data showed that the proportion of patients reporting an overall reduction in their vertigo symptoms was higher in the group treated with betahistine than the placebo group: risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.60; 606 participants; 11 studies). This result should be interpreted with caution as the test for statistical heterogeneity as measured by the I(2) value was high.Adverse effects (mostly gastrointestinal symptoms and headache) were common but medically serious events in the study were rare and isolated: there was no difference in the frequency of adverse effects between the betahistine and placebo groups, where the rates were 16% and 15% respectively (weighted values, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.40; 819 participants; 12 studies).Sixteen per cent of patients from both the betahistine and the placebo groups withdrew (dropped out) from the studies (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; 481 participants; eight studies).Three studies looked at objective vestibular function tests as an outcome; the numbers of participants were small, techniques of measurement very diverse and reporting details sparse, so analysis of this outcome was inconclusive.We looked for information on generic quality of life and falls, but none of the studies reported on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence suggests that in patients suffering from vertigo from different causes there may be a positive effect of betahistine in terms of reduction in vertigo symptoms. Betahistine is generally well tolerated with a low risk of adverse events. Future research into the management of vertigo symptoms needs to use more rigorous methodology and include outcomes that matter to patients and their families.

Short-course oral steroids as an adjunct therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of a suite of six Cochrane reviews looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition involving inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses. It is characterised by nasal blockage and nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Oral corticosteroids are used to control the inflammatory response and improve symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a short course of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct ('add-on') therapy in people with chronic rhinosinusitis who are already on standard treatments. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course (up to 21 days) of oral corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment, where all patients were also receiving pharmacological treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity, and the adverse event of mood or behavioural disturbances. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score, and the adverse events of insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances and osteoporosis. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with a total of 78 participants met the inclusion criteria. Both the populations and the 'standard' treatments differed in the two studies. Oral steroids as an adjunct to intranasal corticosteroids One trial in adults with nasal polyps included 30 participants. All participants used intranasal corticosteroids and were randomised to either short-course oral steroids (oral methylprednisolone, 1 mg/kg and reduced progressively over a 21-day treatment course) or no additional treatment. None of the primary outcome measures of interest in this review were reported by the study. There may have been an important reduction in the size of the polyps (measured by the nasal polyps score, a secondary outcome measure) in patients receiving oral steroids and intranasal corticosteroids, compared to intranasal corticosteroids alone (mean difference (MD) -0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.05; 30 participants; scale 1 to 4) at the end of treatment (21 days). This corresponds to a large effect size, but we are very uncertain about this estimate as we judged the study to be at high risk of bias. Moreover, longer-term data were not available and the other outcomes of interest were not reported. Oral steroids as an adjunct to antibiotics One trial in children (mean age of eight years) without nasal polyps included 48 participants. The trial compared oral corticosteroids (oral methylprednisolone, 1 mg/kg and reduced progressively over a 15-day treatment course) with placebo in participants who also received a 30-day course of antibiotics. This study addressed one of the primary outcome measures (disease severity) and one secondary outcome (CT score). For disease severity the four key symptoms used to define chronic rhinosinusitis in children (nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure, cough) were combined into one score. There was a greater improvement in symptom severity 30 days after the start of treatment in patients who received oral steroids and antibiotics compared with placebo and antibiotics (MD -7.10, 95% CI -9.59 to -4.61; 45 participants; scale 0 to 40). The observed mean difference corresponds to a large effect size. At the same time point there was a difference in CT scan score (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.89; 45 participants; scale 0 to 24). We assessed the quality of the evidence to be low.There were no data available for the longer term (three months). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There might be an improvement in symptom severity, polyps size and condition of the sinuses when assessed using CT scans in patients taking oral corticosteroids when these are used as an adjunct therapy to antibiotics or intranasal corticosteroids, but the quality of the evidence supporting this is low or very low (we are uncertain about the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect). It is unclear whether the benefits of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct therapy are sustained beyond the short follow-up period reported (up to 30 days), as no longer-term data were available.There were no data in this review about the adverse effects associated with short courses of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct therapy.More research in this area, particularly research evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.

Different types of intranasal steroids for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Topical (intranasal) corticosteroids are used with the aim of reducing inflammation in the sinonasal mucosa in order to improve patient symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of intranasal steroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing first-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) with second-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, betamethasone sodium phosphate), or sprays versus drops, or low-dose versus high-dose intranasal corticosteroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis (nosebleed). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse event of local irritation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (911 participants), including four different comparisons. None of the studies evaluated our first primary outcome measure, disease-specific HRQL. Fluticasone propionate versus beclomethasone dipropionate We identified two small studies (56 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity and looked at the primary adverse effect: epistaxis , but no other outcomes. We cannot report any numerical data but the study authors reported no difference between the two steroids. The evidence was of very low quality. Fluticasone propionate versus mometasone furoate We identified only one study (100 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity (nasal symptoms scores), which reported no difference (no numerical data available). The evidence was of very low quality. High-dose versus low-dose steroidsWe included five studies (663 participants with nasal polyps), three using mometasone furoate (400 µg versus 200 µg in adults and older children, 200 µg versus 100 µg in younger children) and two using fluticasone propionate drops (800 µg versus 400 µg). We found low quality evidence relating to disease severity and nasal polyps size, with results from the high-dose and low-dose groups being similar. Although all studies reported more improvement in polyp score in the high-dose group, the significance of this is unclear due to the small size of the improvements.The primary adverse effect, epistaxis , was more common when higher doses were used (risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54, 637 participants, moderate quality evidence). Most of the studies that contributed data to this outcome used a broad definition of epistaxis, which ranged from frank bleeding to bloody nasal discharge to flecks of blood in the mucus. Aqueous nasal spray versus aerosol spray We identified only one poorly reported study (unclear number of participants for comparison of interest, 91 between three treatment arms), in which there were significant baseline differences between the participants in the two groups. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to suggest that one type of intranasal steroid is more effective than another in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, nor that the effectiveness of a spray differs from an aerosol. We identified no studies that compared drops with spray.It is unclear if higher doses result in better symptom improvements (low quality evidence), but there was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of epistaxis as an adverse effect of treatment when higher doses were used. This included all levels of severity of epistaxis and it is likely that the proportion of events that required patients to discontinue usage is low due to the low numbers of withdrawals attributed to it. If epistaxis is limited to streaks of blood in the mucus it may be tolerated by the patient and it may be safe to continue treatment. However, it may be a factor that affects compliance.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the different types of corticosteroid molecule or spray versus aerosol have different effects. Lower doses have similar effectiveness but fewer side effects.Clearly more research in this area is needed, with specific attention given to trial design, disease-specific health-related quality of life outcomes and evaluation of longer-term outcomes and adverse effects.

Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. The use of topical (intranasal) corticosteroids has been widely advocated for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis given the belief that inflammation is a major component of this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) against placebo or no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation or other systemic adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs with a total of 2738 participants. Fourteen studies had participants with nasal polyps and four studies had participants without nasal polyps. Only one study was conducted in children. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention Only one study (20 adult participants without polyps) measured our primary outcome disease-specific HRQL using the Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measures-31 (RSOM-31). They reported no significant difference (numerical data not available) (very low quality evidence).Our second primary outcome, disease severity , was measured using the Chronic Sinusitis Survey in a second study (134 participants without polyps), which found no important difference (mean difference (MD) 2.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.02 to 10.70; scale 0 to 100). Another study (chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps) reported an increased chance of improvement in the intranasal corticosteroids group (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.40; 109 participants). The quality of the evidence was low.Six studies provided data on at least two of the individual symptoms used in the EPOS 2012 criteria to define chronic rhinosinusitis (nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, loss of sense of smell and facial pain/pressure). When all four symptoms in the EPOS criteria were available on a scale of 0 to 3 (higher = more severe symptoms), the average MD in change from baseline was -0.26 (95% CI -0.37 to -0.15; 243 participants; two studies; low quality evidence). Although there were more studies and participants when only nasal blockage and rhinorrhoea were considered (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.24; 1702 participants; six studies), the MD was almost identical to when loss of sense of smell was also considered (1345 participants, four studies; moderate quality evidence).When considering the results for the individual symptoms, benefit was shown in the intranasal corticosteroids group. The effect size was larger for nasal blockage (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.29; 1702 participants; six studies) than for rhinorrhoea (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.17; 1702 participants; six studies) or loss of sense of smell (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.11; 1345 participants; four studies). There was heterogeneity in the analysis for facial pain/pressure (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.02; 243 participants; two studies). The quality of the evidence was moderate for nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea and loss of sense of smell, but low for facial pain/pressure.There was an increased risk of epistaxis with intranasal corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.00; 2508 participants; 13 studies; high quality evidence).Considering our secondary outcome, general HRQL, one study (134 participants without polyps) measured this using the SF-36 and reported a statistically significant benefit only on the general health subscale. The quality of the evidence was very low.It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of local irritation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.64; 2124 participants; 11 studies) (low quality evidence).None of the studies treated or followed up patients long enough to provide meaningful data on the risk of osteoporosis or stunted growth (children). Other comparisons We identified no other studies that compared intranasal corticosteroids plus co-intervention A versus placebo plus co-intervention A. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the evidence available was from studies in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. There is little information about quality of life (very low quality evidence). For disease severity, there seems to be improvement for all symptoms (low quality evidence), a moderate-sized benefit for nasal blockage and a small benefit for rhinorrhoea (moderate quality evidence). The risk of epistaxis is increased (high quality evidence), but these data included all levels of severity; small streaks of blood may not be a major concern for patients. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of local irritation (low quality evidence).

Short-course oral steroids alone for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of a suite of six Cochrane reviews looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition involving inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses. It is characterised by nasal blockage and nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Oral corticosteroids are used to control the inflammatory response and improve symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral corticosteroids compared with placebo/no intervention or other pharmacological interventions (intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics, antifungals) for chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course (up to 21 days) of oral corticosteroids with placebo or no treatment or compared with other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity, and the adverse event of mood or behavioural disturbances. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances and osteoporosis. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (474 randomised participants), which compared oral corticosteroids with placebo or no intervention. All trials only recruited adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. All trials reported outcomes at two to three weeks, at the end of the short-course oral steroid treatment period. Three trials additionally reported outcomes at three to six months. Two of these studies prescribed intranasal steroids to patients in both arms of the trial at the end of the oral steroid treatment period. Oral steroids versus placebo or no intervention Disease-specific health-related quality of life was reported by one study. This study reported improved quality of life after treatment (two to three weeks) in the group receiving oral steroids compared with the group who received placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.92 to -0.56, 40 participants, modified RSOM-31), which corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be low quality (we are uncertain about the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect). Disease severity as measured by patient-reported symptom scores was reported by two studies, which allowed the four key symptoms used to define chronic rhinosinusitis (nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure, hyposmia) to be combined into one score. The results at the end of treatment (two to three weeks) showed an improvement in patients receiving oral steroids compared to placebo, both when presented as a mean final value (SMD -2.84, 95% CI -4.09 to -1.59, 22 participants) and as a change from baseline (SMD -2.28, 95% CI -2.76 to -1.80, 114 participants). These correspond to large effect sizes but we assessed the evidence to be low quality.One study (114 participants) followed patients for 10 weeks after the two-week treatment period. All patients in both arms received intranasal steroids at the end of the oral steroid treatment period. The results showed that the initial results after treatment were not sustained (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.15, 114 participants, percentage improvement from baseline). This corresponds to a small effect size and we assessed the evidence to be low quality.There was an increase in adverse events in people receiving orals steroids compared with placebo for gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 3.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 10.78; 187 participants; three studies) and insomnia (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.10 to 11.95; 187 participants; three studies). There was no significant impact of oral steroids on mood disturbances at the dosage used in the included study (risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 95% CI 0.55 to 11.41; 40 participants; one study). We assessed the evidence to be low quality due to the lack of definitions of the adverse events and the small number of events or sample size, or both). Other comparisons No studies that compared short-course oral steroids with other treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the end of the treatment course (two to three weeks) there is an improvement in health-related quality of life and symptom severity in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps taking oral corticosteroids compared with placebo or no treatment. The quality of the evidence supporting this finding is low. At three to six months after the end of the oral steroid treatment period, there is little or no improvement in health-related quality of life or symptom severity for patients taking an initial course of oral steroids compared with placebo or no treatment.The data on the adverse effects associated with short courses of oral corticosteroids indicate that there may be an increase in insomnia and gastrointestinal disturbances but it is not clear whether there is an increase in mood disturbances. All of the adverse events results are based on low quality evidence.More research in this area, particularly research evaluating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.There is no evidence for oral steroids compared with other treatments.

Systemic and topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention.The varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo Three studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants).One study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups.One study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids One study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for "desperately worse" to 2 for "cured") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later. Systemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroids One study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroids One study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found.Despite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported.No RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria.More research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual care One trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroids One trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment.