Nasal irrigation with corticosteroids in Brazil: the clinical response of 1% compounded budesonide drops and betamethasone cream

Abstract Introduction: High-volume corticosteroid nasal irrigation is a treatment option in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. In Brazil, alternatives are used to optimize its cost and popularize its use, such as 1% compounded budesonide drops or betamethasone cream, and it is necessary to study these treatment modalities. Objective: To evaluate the clinical response of nasal irrigation with 1% compounded budesonide drops or betamethasone cream compared to nasal sprays utilized in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study with 257 patients. One hundred and eight patients using corticosteroid nasal irrigation (292 treatment cycles) and 149 using corticosteroid nasal spray (300 treatment cycles) were included. Evaluation of subjective improvement, adverse events, exacerbations, and objective assessments with SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score were performed, in addition to sub-analyses related to nasal polyps and previous surgery. Results: Corticosteroid nasal irrigation and corticosteroid nasal spray improved the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, with more adverse events in the corticosteroid nasal irrigation group. Previous surgery increased corticosteroid nasal irrigation improvement, with greater subjective improvement and fewer exacerbations. 1% compounded budesonide drops were better than betamethasone cream in the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, with fewer adverse events. A 1,000 μg dose of 1% compounded budesonide drops was more effective than 500 μg. Conclusion: Corticosteroid nasal irrigation was effective in improving the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score in chronic rhinosinusitis, especially in patients with nasal polyps and previous surgery, in addition to promoting a higher rate of subjective improvement and fewer exacerbations than corticosteroid nasal spray, but with more adverse events. 1% compounded budesonide drops improved the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score with fewer adverse events than betamethasone cream, particularly at higher doses (1000 μg).

SPECIAL ARTICLE COVID-19: Safety for the Rhinologist in the Age of COVID-19: Mask Use, Nasal Corticosteroids, Saline Irrigation, and Endoscopic Procedures - Literature Review

Abstract Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has claimed millions of lives. Adequate protection of the professionals involved in patient care is essential in the battle against this disease. However, there is much uncertainty involving safety-relarted topics that are of particular interest to the rhinologist in the context of COVID-19. Objective To evaluate the current evidence regarding three safety-related topics: mask and respirator use, performance of nasal endoscopic procedures, and use of topical nasal and intranasal medications (saline irrigation and nasal corticosteroids). Methods A literature review was performed on the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, with standardized search queries for each of the three topics of interest. Results In total, 13 articles on mask use, 6 articles on the safety of nasal corticosteroids, 6 articles on the safety of nasal endoscopic procedures, and 1 article on nasal irrigation with saline solution were included in the final analysis. Conclusion N95 respirators are essential for the adequate protection of otolaryngologists. If reuse is necessary, physical methods of sterilization must be employed. No evidence was found to contraindicate the use of nasal corticosteroids, whether acute (in the management of sinonasal inflammatory conditions) or continued (in patients who use them chronically). Nasal irrigation with saline solution apparently does not increase the risk in the context of COVID-19. Nasal endoscopic procedures should only be performed after testing the patient for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the surgical team must wear full personal protective equipment to prevent aerosol exposure.

Safety for the Rhinologist in the Age of COVID-19: Mask Use, Nasal Corticosteroids, Saline Irrigation, and Endoscopic Procedures - Literature Review.

Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has claimed millions of lives. Adequate protection of the professionals involved in patient care is essential in the battle against this disease. However, there is much uncertainty involving safety-relarted topics that are of particular interest to the rhinologist in the context of COVID-19. Objective To evaluate the current evidence regarding three safety-related topics: mask and respirator use, performance of nasal endoscopic procedures, and use of topical nasal and intranasal medications (saline irrigation and nasal corticosteroids). Methods A literature review was performed on the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, with standardized search queries for each of the three topics of interest. Results In total, 13 articles on mask use, 6 articles on the safety of nasal corticosteroids, 6 articles on the safety of nasal endoscopic procedures, and 1 article on nasal irrigation with saline solution were included in the final analysis. Conclusion N95 respirators are essential for the adequate protection of otolaryngologists. If reuse is necessary, physical methods of sterilization must be employed. No evidence was found to contraindicate the use of nasal corticosteroids, whether acute (in the management of sinonasal inflammatory conditions) or continued (in patients who use them chronically). Nasal irrigation with saline solution apparently does not increase the risk in the context of COVID-19. Nasal endoscopic procedures should only be performed after testing the patient for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the surgical team must wear full personal protective equipment to prevent aerosol exposure.

Nasal irrigation with corticosteroids in Brazil: the clinical response of 1% compounded budesonide drops and betamethasone cream.

INTRODUCTION: High-volume corticosteroid nasal irrigation is a treatment option in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. In Brazil, alternatives are used to optimize its cost and popularize its use, such as 1% compounded budesonide drops or betamethasone cream, and it is necessary to study these treatment modalities. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical response of nasal irrigation with 1% compounded budesonide drops or betamethasone cream compared to nasal sprays utilized in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study with 257 patients. One hundred and eight patients using corticosteroid nasal irrigation (292 treatment cycles) and 149 using corticosteroid nasal spray (300 treatment cycles) were included. Evaluation of subjective improvement, adverse events, exacerbations, and objective assessments with SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score were performed, in addition to sub-analyses related to nasal polyps and previous surgery. RESULTS: Corticosteroid nasal irrigation and corticosteroid nasal spray improved the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, with more adverse events in the corticosteroid nasal irrigation group. Previous surgery increased corticosteroid nasal irrigation improvement, with greater subjective improvement and fewer exacerbations. 1% compounded budesonide drops were better than betamethasone cream in the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, with fewer adverse events. A 1,000 µg dose of 1% compounded budesonide drops was more effective than 500 µg. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid nasal irrigation was effective in improving the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score in chronic rhinosinusitis, especially in patients with nasal polyps and previous surgery, in addition to promoting a higher rate of subjective improvement and fewer exacerbations than corticosteroid nasal spray, but with more adverse events. 1% compounded budesonide drops improved the Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score with fewer adverse events than betamethasone cream, particularly at higher doses (1000 µg).

Incomplete and late recovery of sudden olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 / Recuperação incompleta e tardia da perda súbita do olfato na COVID-19

Abstract Introduction Sudden olfactory dysfunction is a new symptom related to COVID-19, with little data on its duration or recovery rate. Objective To characterize patients with sudden olfactory dysfunction during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially their recovery data. Methods An online survey was conducted by the Brazilian Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervico-Facial Surgery, and Brazilian Academy of Rhinology, including doctors who assessed sudden olfactory dysfunction patients starting after February 1st, 2020. Participants were posteriorly asked by e-mail to verify data on the recovery of sudden olfactory loss and test for COVID-19 at the end of the data collection period. Results 253 sudden olfactory dysfunction patients were included, of which 59.1% were females with median age of 36 years, with a median follow-up period of 31 days. 183 patients (72.3%) had been tested for COVID-19, and of those 145 (79.2%) tested positive. Patients that tested positive for COVID-19 more frequently showed non-specific inflammatory symptoms (89.7% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.02), a lower rate of total recovery of sudden olfactory dysfunction (52.6% vs. 70.3%; p = 0.05) and a longer duration to achieve total recovery (15 days vs. 10 days; p = 0.0006) than the ones who tested negative for COVID-19. Considering only positive-COVID-19 patients, individuals with sudden hyposmia completely recovered more often than the ones with sudden anosmia (68.4% vs. 50.0%; p = 0.04). Conclusion Positive-COVID-19 patients with sudden olfactory dysfunction showed lower total recovery rate and longer duration than negative-COVID-19 patients. Additionally, total recovery was seen more frequently in positive-COVID-19 patients with sudden hyposmia than the ones with sudden anosmia.

Resumo Introdução A perda súbita do olfato é um novo sintoma relacionado à COVID-19, porém com poucos dados sobre sua duração ou resolução. Objetivo Caracterizar pacientes que apresentaram perda súbita do olfato durante a pandemia da COVID-19 e em especial a sua recuperação. Método Pesquisa online desenvolvida pela Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial e Academia Brasileira de Rinologia direcionado aos médicos que atenderam pacientes com perda súbita do olfato com início após 1° de fevereiro de 2020. Os participantes foram questionados posteriormente por e-mail, para verificar os dados sobre a recuperação da perda súbita do olfato e teste para COVID-19, no final do período de coleta de dados. Resultados Foram incluídos 253 pacientes com perda súbita de olfato, 59,1% mulheres e idade mediana de 36 anos, acompanhados por 31 dias (mediana). Testagem para COVID-19 foi feita em 183 (72,3%) pacientes, 145 (79,2%) positivos e 38 (20,8%) negativos. COVID-19 positivos apresentaram sintomas inflamatórios inespecíficos mais frequentemente (89,7% vs. 73,7%; p = 0,02); menor taxa de recuperação total da perda súbita do olfato (52,6% vs. 70,3%; p = 0,05) e maior tempo para atingir a recuperação total (15 dias vs. 10 dias; p = 0,0006) comparados aos COVID-19 negativos. Considerando somente COVID-19 positivos, hiposmia súbita apresentou melhoria total mais frequentemente do que anosmia súbita (68,4% vs. 50,0%; p = 0,04). Conclusão A perda súbita do olfato em pacientes COVID-19 positivos apresentou menor taxa de recuperação total e duração mais prolongada do que em Covid-19 negativos. E a hiposmia súbita apresentou recuperação total mais frequentemente do que a anosmia súbita em COVID-19 positivos.

Incomplete and late recovery of sudden olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Sudden olfactory dysfunction is a new symptom related to COVID-19, with little data on its duration or recovery rate. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with sudden olfactory dysfunction during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially their recovery data. METHODS: An online survey was conducted by the Brazilian Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervico-Facial Surgery, and Brazilian Academy of Rhinology, including doctors who assessed sudden olfactory dysfunction patients starting after February 1st, 2020. Participants were posteriorly asked by e-mail to verify data on the recovery of sudden olfactory loss and test for COVID-19 at the end of the data collection period. RESULTS: 253 sudden olfactory dysfunction patients were included, of which 59.1% were females with median age of 36 years, with a median follow-up period of 31 days. 183 patients (72.3%) had been tested for COVID-19, and of those 145 (79.2%) tested positive. Patients that tested positive for COVID-19 more frequently showed non-specific inflammatory symptoms (89.7% vs. 73.7%; p=0.02), a lower rate of total recovery of sudden olfactory dysfunction (52.6% vs. 70.3%; p=0.05) and a longer duration to achieve total recovery (15 days vs. 10 days; p=0.0006) than the ones who tested negative for COVID-19. Considering only positive-COVID-19 patients, individuals with sudden hyposmia completely recovered more often than the ones with sudden anosmia (68.4% vs. 50.0%; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Positive-COVID-19 patients with sudden olfactory dysfunction showed lower total recovery rate and longer duration than negative-COVID-19 patients. Additionally, total recovery was seen more frequently in positive-COVID-19 patients with sudden hyposmia than the ones with sudden anosmia.