Systematic Review of Protein Biomarkers in Adult Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a heterogeneous condition characterized by differing inflammatory endotypes. The identification of suitable biomarkers could enable personalized approaches to treatment selection. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and summarize clinical studies of biomarkers in adults with CRS in order to inform future research into CRS endotypes. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches of MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to January 30, 2022 and included all clinical studies of adult CRS patients and healthy controls measuring biomarkers using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or Luminex immunoassays. Outcomes included the name and tissue type of identified biomarkers and expression patterns within CRS phenotypes. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 78 relevant studies involving up to 9394 patients, predominantly with CRS with nasal polyposis. Studies identified 80 biomarkers from nasal tissue, 25 from nasal secretions, 14 from nasal lavage fluid, 24 from serum, and one from urine. The majority of biomarkers found to distinguish CRS phenotypes were identified in nasal tissue, especially in nasal polyps. Serum biomarkers were more commonly found to differentiate CRS from controls. The most frequently measured biomarker was IL-5, followed by IL-13 and IL-4. Serum IgE, IL-17, pentraxin-3 and nasal phospho-janus kinase 2, IL-5, IL-6, IL-17A, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and interferon gamma were identified as correlated with disease severity. CONCLUSION: We have identified numerous potential biomarkers to differentiate a range of CRS phenotypes. Future studies should focus on the prognostic role of nasal tissue biomarkers or expand on the more limited studies of nasal secretions and nasal lavage fluid.We registered this study in PROSPERO (CRD42022302787).

Olfactory Nomenclature: An Orchestrated Effort to Clarify Terms and Definitions of Dysosmia, Anosmia, Hyposmia, Normosmia, Hyperosmia, Olfactory Intolerance, Parosmia, and Phantosmia/Olfactory Hallucination.

BACKGROUND: Definitions are essential for effective communication and discourse, particularly in science. They allow the shared understanding of a thought or idea, generalization of knowledge, and comparison across scientific investigation. The current terms describing olfactory dysfunction are vague and overlapping. SUMMARY: As a group of clinical olfactory researchers, we propose the standardization of the terms "dysosmia," "anosmia," "hyposmia," "normosmia," "hyperosmia," "olfactory intolerance," "parosmia," and "phantosmia" (or "olfactory hallucination") in olfaction-related communication, with specific definitions in this text. KEY MESSAGES: The words included in this paper were determined as those which are most frequently used in the context of olfactory function and dysfunction, in both clinical and research settings. Despite widespread use in publications, however, there still exists some disagreement in the literature regarding the definitions of terms related to olfaction. Multiple overlapping and imprecise terms that are currently in use are confusing and hinder clarity and universal understanding of these concepts. There is a pressing need to have a unified agreement on the definitions of these olfactory terms by researchers working in the field of chemosensory sciences. With the increased interest in olfaction, precise use of these terms will improve the ability to integrate and advance knowledge in this field.

Establishing UK research priorities in smell and taste disorders: A James Lind alliance priority setting partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the top 10 research priorities in Smell and Taste Disorders (SATD). DESIGN: After steering group was established, an electronic survey was disseminated to determine the list of questions. After removing out-of-scope responses, the remainder were consolidated to create summary questions. A literature search was conducted to remove already answered questions. A second survey was used to determine the top questions that formed the subject of final debate at a workshop attended by clinicians and patients to determine the top 10 priorities. SETTING: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLAPSP) was established by FifthSense to identify the top 10 research questions in SATDs in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANT: All stakeholders in SATDs (patients, healthcare professionals, family, carers, researchers). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Final 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The 665 respondents to the initial survey provided 1698 research questions. Thirteen were out-of-scope and removed; remaining 1685 were then consolidated to form 147 summary questions. Following literature search and discussion with the steering group, 37 questions remained for the second survey, which 235 people responded. The top ten priorities agreed upon in the workshop covered themes of improved understanding of pathophysiologlogy, improving health services, and managing long-term effects of smell/taste disorders. The most important research question agreed was "How can we further our understanding of the mechanism of disease in the nerve pathways that affect smell and taste disorders, including where parosmia and phantosmia exist." CONCLUSION: We report the top 10 research priorities in smell and taste disorders. These priorities will now empower researchers to secure research funding and provide the basis of the FifthSense research hub.

Observational retrospective study calculating health service costs of patients receiving surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis in England, using linked patient-level primary and secondary care electronic data.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) symptoms are experienced by an estimated 11% of UK adults, and symptoms have major impacts on quality of life. Data from UK and elsewhere suggest high economic burden of CRS, but detailed cost information and economic analyses regarding surgical pathway are lacking. This paper estimates healthcare costs for patients receiving surgery for CRS in England. DESIGN: Observational retrospective study examining cost of healthcare of patients receiving CRS surgery. SETTING: Linked electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics databases in England. PARTICIPANTS: A phenotyping algorithm using medical ontology terms identified 'definite' CRS cases who received CRS surgery. Patients were registered with a general practice in England. Data covered the period 1997-2016. A cohort of 13 462 patients had received surgery for CRS, with 9056 (67%) having confirmed nasal polyps. OUTCOME MEASURES: Information was extracted on numbers and types of primary care prescriptions and consultations, and inpatient and outpatient hospital investigations and procedures. Resource use was costed using published sources. RESULTS: Total National Health Service costs in CRS surgery patients were £2173 over 1 year including surgery. Total costs per person-quarter were £1983 in the quarter containing surgery, mostly comprising surgical inpatient care costs (£1902), and around £60 per person-quarter in the 2 years before and after surgery, of which half were outpatient costs. Outpatient and primary care costs were low compared with the peak in inpatient costs at surgery. The highest outpatient expenditure was on CT scans, peaking in the quarter preceding surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first study of costs to the English healthcare system for patients receiving surgery for CRS. The total aggregate costs provide a further impetus for trials to evaluate the relative benefit of surgical intervention.

Barriers to effective health care for patients who have smell or taste disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Smell/taste disturbances are a common but underrated, under-researched and under treated sensory loss and an independent risk factor for reduced longevity. This study aimed to characterise the experience of patients with these disorders in seeking help. DESIGN: The study was designed by patients together with clinicians through a dedicated workshop and conducted as a cross-sectional survey to capture experiences in public and private healthcare settings internationally. SETTING: Primary, secondary and tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: Any members of the public self-reporting a smell/taste disorder were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey captured information including experience of getting consultations and referrals to medical professionals, treatments offered, costs incurred and related problems with mental health. RESULTS: Of 673 participants; 510 female, 160 male, three not stated, self-reported aetiology included sinonasal disease (24%), idiopathic (24%) and post-viral olfactory dysfunction (22%); true gustatory disorders were typically rare. Failure of medical professionals to recognise the problem was a key concern - 64%, 76% and 47% of GPs, ENT specialists and Neurologists acknowledged, respectively. Other issues included repeated ineffective treatments, difficulties getting referrals to secondary/tertiary care, mental health problems (60%) and a mean personal cost of £421 to seeking advice and treatment. Whilst the participants were self-selecting, however, they do represent those who are seeking help and intervention for their disorders. CONCLUSION: There is an unmet need for these patients in accessing health care including a clear need to improve education of and engagement with the medical profession in Otorhinolaryngology, General Practice and other specialties, in order to remove the current barriers they face.

Patient Experiences of Postinfectious Olfactory Dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: To highlight the importance of the need for new treatment modalities, this study aimed to characterise the experience of patients with postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD) in terms of the treatment they received. METHODS: An online survey was hosted by the Norwich Clinical Trials Unit on the secure REDCap server. Members of the charity Fifth Sense (the UK charity that represents and supports people affected by smell and taste disorders) were invited to participate. RESULTS: There were 149 respondents, of whom 127 had identified themselves as having (or had) PIOD. The age range of respondents to the survey was 28-85 years, with a mean of 58 ± 12 years, with the duration of their disorder <5 years in 63% of cases. Respondents reported experiencing variable treatment with oral and/or intranasal steroids given typically (28%), often with no benefit, but with 50% receiving no treatment whatsoever; only 3% reported undertaking olfactory training. Over two-thirds of patients experience parosmia and, up to 5 years from the onset of the problem, were still actively seeking a solution. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a need to encourage greater use of guidelines for olfactory disorders amongst medical practitioners and also to develop more effective treatments for patients with PIOD, where there is clearly an unmet need.

Systemic corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell dysfunction: an international view.

The frequent association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and olfactory dysfunction is creating an unprecedented demand for a treatment of the olfactory loss. Systemic corticosteroids have been considered as a therapeutic option. However, based on current literature, we call for caution using these treatments in early COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction because: (1) evidence supporting their usefulness is weak; (2) the rate of spontaneous recovery of COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction is high; and (3) corticosteroids have well-known potential adverse effects. We encourage randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of systemic steroids in this indication and strongly emphasize to initially consider smell training, which is supported by a robust evidence base and has no known side effects.

Clinical Olfactory Working Group consensus statement on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post-coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists. METHODS: A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD. RESULTS: The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options.

Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Paediatric tonsillectomy in England: A cohort study of clinical practice and outcomes using Hospital Episode Statistics data (2008-2019).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of paediatric tonsillectomy procedures conducted in NHS hospitals in England between 2008 and 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. SETTING: Acute NHS trusts in England conducting paediatric tonsillectomy procedures. PARTICIPANTS: Children (≤16 years old) undergoing bilateral tonsillectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of tonsillectomies performed per year by procedural method. In-hospital complications including return to theatre for arrest of haemorrhage. Readmission within 28 days, including those for pain, haemorrhage and surgical arrest of haemorrhage. Long-term outcomes: all-cause mortality, revision tonsillectomy. RESULTS: A total of 318 453 paediatric tonsillectomies were performed from 2008 to 2019:278,772 dissection (87.5%) and 39 681 coblation (12.5%). The proportion of tonsillectomy performed using coblation increased from 7% in 2008/9 to 27% in 2018/9. Five patients died in hospital (including 4 due to respiratory complications). In-hospital complications occurred in 4202 children (1.3%), with the most frequent being haemorrhage. Within 28 days of tonsillectomy, 28 170 patients (8.8%) were readmitted and 7 deaths occurred. Readmission rates for haemorrhage and pain have increased since 2008. The proportion of children undergoing revision tonsillectomy procedures within 5 years following coblation tonsillectomy (1.4%) was approximately double that of dissection (0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice of paediatric tonsillectomy has changed in England over the past 11 years. The overall mortality rate associated with the procedure is 0.0037%. Differences in outcomes have been identified for different procedural methods. However, routine administrative data are limited in differentiating procedural detail (eg we are unable to differentiate intra or extra-capsular techniques from current clinical coding of tonsillectomy procedures). Therefore, prospective national data collection or more granular clinical coding is essential to capture relative outcomes of the different tonsillectomy methods and techniques being used in the NHS.

The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. METHODS: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. RESULTS: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. CONCLUSIONS: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10

Defining appropriateness criteria for endoscopic sinus surgery in the management of adult dental implant patients with incidental maxillary sinus findings on conebeam computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: Conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging is commonly requested by dental implant surgeons, preoperatively, for patients being considered for dental implants. Incidental maxillary sinus findings often result in otolaryngology (ENT) referral for further assessment. CBCT findings include transient and benign mucosal changes that may not require any intervention and therefore unnecessarily delay implant surgery. We aim to define appropriateness criteria for ESS in the management of adult dental implant patients with incidental maxillary sinus findings on CBCT and provide guidance to both dental implant and ENT surgeons. DESIGN: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to develop and define the appropriateness criteria. SETTING: A virtual panel of 13 international experts in ESS. PARTICIPANTS: The expert panel completed two rounds of a modified Delphi ranking process for nine clinical scenarios, considering various factors affecting decision-making processes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To define appropriateness criteria for ESS in adult dental implant patients who have incidental maxillary sinus findings on CBCT. RESULTS: Patients with clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings of chronic rhinosinusitis together with an obstructed ostiomeatal complex (OMC) and concentric mucosal thickening of the ipsilateral maxillary sinus or pansinusitis were deemed appropriate candidates for ESS prior to their dental implant. ESS was not appropriate in asymptomatic patients with a patent OMC and mucosal thickening isolated to floor of the ipsilateral maxillary sinus. For uncertain scenarios, further discussion between dental implant and ENT surgeon should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: This study has developed and reported a list of appropriateness criteria to offer ESS in adult dental implant patients with incidental maxillary sinus findings on CBCT.

Cholesteatoma and family history: An international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relative frequency of a family history of cholesteatoma in patients with known cholesteatoma, and whether bilateral disease or earlier diagnosis is more likely in those with a family history. Associations between cleft lip or palate and bilateral disease and age of diagnosis were also explored. DESIGN: An online survey of patients with diagnosed cholesteatoma was conducted between October 2017 and April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of patients recruited from two UK clinics and self-selected respondents recruited internationally via social media. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Side of cholesteatoma, whether respondents had any family history of cholesteatoma, age of diagnosis and personal or family history of cleft lip or palate were recorded. RESULTS: Of 857 respondents, 89 (10.4%) reported a positive family history of cholesteatoma. Respondents with a family history of cholesteatoma were more likely to have bilateral cholesteatoma (P = .001, odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-3.43), but there was no difference in the age of diagnosis (P = .23). Those with a history of cleft lip or palate were not more likely to have bilateral disease (P = .051, OR 2.71, CI 1.00-7.38), and there was no difference in age of diagnosis (P = .11). CONCLUSION: The relatively high proportion of respondents that reported a family history of cholesteatoma offers supporting evidence of heritability in cholesteatoma. The use of social media to recruit respondents to this survey means that the results cannot be generalised to other populations with cholesteatoma. Further population-based research is suggested to determine the heritability of cholesteatoma.

An unmet need: Patients with smell and taste disorders.

OBJECTIVES: There are large numbers of patients with olfactory disturbance in the UK and shortfalls in assessment and support amongst mainstream practice in both primary and secondary care leading to significant quality-of-life impairment and potential missed diagnoses. The aim of this study was to determine the key themes which can be identified from the accounts of anosmia sufferers and to identify important areas to target for future research or service development. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of written patient accounts from patients corresponding with a tertiary smell and taste clinic in the UK. This qualitative study utilised unstructured written patient accounts from consenting patients experiencing olfactory disturbances received by the smell and taste clinic. Framework analysis was performed using Nvivo 10 software. SETTING: Tertiary smell and taste clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Consenting patients who contacted the smell and taste clinic with accounts of their experiences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes generated by qualitative analysis with Nvivo software. RESULTS: Accounts submitted by 71 participants were included in the analysis; age range 31-80 years, 45 females, 26 males. Themes identified include negative emotional impact, feelings of isolation, impaired relationships and daily functioning, impact on physical health and the difficulty and financial burden of seeking help. CONCLUSIONS: Olfactory disturbances have a wide-ranging impact on the lives of sufferers, compounded by a lack of knowledge of the disorder amongst clinicians. There is a role for further support and education both for sufferers and for clinicians, as well as a need to improve our understanding of olfactory disturbance.

Validation of the olfactory disorders questionnaire for English-speaking patients with olfactory disorders.

OBJECTIVES: To adapt the existing German language olfactory disorders questionnaire for use with English-speaking patients. To validate the adapted version for routine clinical use. DESIGN: The translated version of the original German questionnaire was revised with a patient and a clinician to reflect British language and culture. Patients attending an olfactory dysfunction clinic were recruited to perform the adapted questionnaire on two occasions at least 1 month apart. Additional online participants completed the questionnaire via the charity Fifth Sense. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retest reliability of the English olfactory disorders questionnaire (eODQ) in affected patients including potential for redundancy in any of the included questions. Correlation of eODQ scores with Sniffin' Sticks scores. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients reporting olfactory dysfunction were recruited and had a mean age of 48 with 35% of them being male; 50 datasets were available for analysis. A total of 957 members of the charity entered responses into the online questionnaire; 699 responses could be scored with participants' mean age of 55 years and with 69% reporting as female. The eODQ score and Sniffin' Sticks threshold, discrimination and identification score at timepoint 1 were correlated to assess for concurrent validity, (r = -0.15, P = 0.17) and showed no significant correlation. Female participants had a significantly higher mean total eODQ score than men, 55.75 compared to 52.28 (P = 0.001). The average score was 54.7 (SD 13.5) with a range from 26 to 87. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was good with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.90 (confidence intervals 0.89, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the use of the eODQ in a native English-speaking population and highlight the different distinctions between "objective" testing of olfaction with the Sniffin' Sticks test, and the patient reported impact of olfactory dysfunction on daily life. These two types of assessment can be easily administered in an outpatient setting and used in the assessment and management of olfactory dysfunction.

Chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of patient views and experiences of current management in primary and secondary care.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient views and perspectives of current management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in primary and secondary care. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis). SETTING: Primary care and secondary care ear, nose and throat outpatient clinics in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five patients consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: CRS has a significant impact on patients' quality of life, affecting their ability to work effectively, their social interactions and daily living. Patients seek help when symptoms become unmanageable, but can become frustrated with the primary care system with difficulties obtaining an appointment, and lack of continuity of care. Patients perceive that general practitioners can be dismissive of CRS symptoms, and patients often prioritise other concerns when they consult. Health system barriers and poor communication can result in delays in accessing appropriate treatment and referral. Adherence to intranasal steroids is a problem and patients are uncertain about correct technique. Nasal irrigation can be time-consuming and difficult for patients to use. Secondary care consultations can appear rushed, and patients would like specialists to take a more 'holistic' approach to their management. Surgery is often considered a temporary solution, appropriate when medical options have been explored. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are frustrated with the management of their CRS, and poor communication can result in delays in receiving appropriate treatment and timely referral. Patients seek better understanding of their condition and guidance to support treatments decisions in light of uncertainties around the different medical and surgical options. Better coordinated care between general practice and specialist settings and consistency of advice has the potential to increase patient satisfaction and improve outcomes.

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To explore general practitioner (GP) and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialist perspectives of current treatment strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and care pathways through primary and secondary care. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic Rhinosinusitis) SETTING: Primary care and secondary care ENT outpatient clinics in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve GPs and 9 ENT specialists consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Healthcare professional views of management options and care pathways for CRS. RESULTS: GPs describe themselves as confident in recognising CRS, with the exception of assessing nasal polyps. In contrast, specialists report common missed diagnoses (eg, allergy; chronic headache) when patients are referred to ENT clinics, and attribute this to the limited ENT training of GPs. Steroid nasal sprays provide the foundation of treatment in primary care, although local prescribing restrictions can affect treatment choice and poor adherence is perceived to be the causes of inadequate symptom control. Symptom severity, poor response to medical treatment and patient pressure drive referral, although there is uncertainty about optimal timing. Treatment decisions in secondary care are based on disease severity, polyp status, prior medical treatment and patient choice, but there is major uncertainty about the place of longer courses of antibiotics and the use of oral steroids. Surgery is regarded as an important treatment option for patients with severe symptoms or with nasal polyps, although timing of surgery remains unclear, and the uncertainty about net long-term benefits of surgery makes balancing of benefits and risks more difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are uncertain about best management of patients with CRS in both primary and secondary care and practice is varied. An integrated care pathway for CRS is needed to improve patient management and timely referral.

Prevalence of asthma, aspirin sensitivity and allergy in chronic rhinosinusitis: data from the UK National Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disorder associated with other respiratory tract diseases such as asthma and inhalant allergy. However, the prevalence of these co-morbidities varies considerably in the existing medical literature and by phenotype of CRS studied. The study objective was to identify the prevalence of asthma, inhalant allergy and aspirin sensitivity in CRS patients referred to secondary care and establish any differences between CRS phenotypes. METHODS: All participants were diagnosed in secondary care according to international guidelines and invited to complete a questionnaire including details of co-morbidities and allergies. Data were analysed for differences between controls and CRS participants and between phenotypes using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1470 study participants: 221 controls, 553 CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNPs), 651 CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNPs) and 45 allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS). The prevalence of asthma was 9.95, 21.16, 46.9 and 73.3% respectively. The prevalence of self-reported confirmed inhalant allergy was 13.1, 20.3, 31.0 and 33.3% respectively; house dust mite allergy was significantly higher in CRSwNPs (16%) compared to CRSsNPs (9%, p < 0.001). The prevalence of self- reported aspirin sensitivity was 2.26, 3.25, 9.61 and 40% respectively. The odds ratio for aspirin sensitivity amongst those with AFRS was 28.8 (CIs 9.9, 83.8) p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of asthma and allergy in CRS varies by phenoytype, with CRSwNPs and AFRS having a stronger association with both. Aspirin sensitivity has a highly significant association with AFRS. All of these comorbidities are significantly more prevalent than in non-CRS controls and strengthen the need for a more individualised approach to the combined airway.

Quality-of-life outcomes after sinus surgery in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis versus nonfungal chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Given the differences in pathophysiology between allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) and other chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) subgroups, it remains unclear about whether these patients respond differently to a combination of surgical and medical treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for a cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for CRS. METHODS: This retrospective review included patients with CRS who underwent ESS between 2010 and 2013. QoL was measured by using the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Variables collected included baseline demographics, SNOT-22 scores before ESS and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after ESS. Groups tested were CRS with nasal polyposis, CRS without nasal polyposis (CRSsNP), and patients with AFRS. A linear mixed- effects regression model was used to calculate the adjusted mean QoL differences. RESULTS: Among the 250 patients included, 61.6% had CRS with nasal polyposis (n = 154), 28.8% had CRSsNP (n = 72), and 9.6% had AFRS (n = 24). Significant differences were seen in SNOT-22 scores between pre- and postoperative visits and between the etiologic subgroups (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed significantly greater improvement in QoL for patients with AFRS in comparison with those with CRSsNP at the 9-month follow-up (change in SNOT-22 score, 22.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-44.1]; p < 0.0) and the 12-month follow-up (change in SNOT-22 score, 20.2 [95% confidence interval, 0.5-39.9]; p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AFRS experienced a more-prolonged QoL benefit from surgical and targeted medical intervention compared with those with CRSsNP, which may reflect the severity of inflammation that they presented with compared with other CRS subtypes.

Anatomic findings in revision endoscopic sinus surgery: Case series and review of contributory factors.

BACKGROUND: It is recognized that patients who undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) do not always achieve control of their disease. The causes are multifactorial; variations in surgical practice have been identified as possible factors in refractory disease. OBJECTIVE: To reflect on the frequent anatomic findings of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who require revision ESS. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who required revision ESS at a tertiary institution over a 3-year period. Patients for whom maximal medical therapy failed for CRS underwent computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses and image-guided surgery. Surgical records of anatomic findings were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: Over 3 years, a total of 75 patients underwent revision procedures, 28% of all ESS performed in the unit. The most frequent finding was a residual uncinate process in 64% of the patients (n = 48); other findings included a maxillary antrostomy not based on the natural ostium of the maxillary sinus in 47% (n = 35), an oversized antrostomy in 29% (n = 22), resected middle turbinates in 35% (n = 26), middle meatal stenosis in 15% (n = 11), synechiae in 29% (n = 22), and osteitic bone that required drilling in 13% (n = 10). CONCLUSION: Surgical technique can give rise to anatomic variations that may prevent adequate mucociliary clearance and medication delivery, which leads to failure in ESS in patients with CRS. This study demonstrated the surgical findings encountered in revision ESS that should be highlighted in the training of Ear, Nose and Throat surgeons to help prevent primary failure and reduce health care costs.