Reduced Use of Antibiotics and Nasal Decongestants During Treatment with a Mouthwash Containing Delmopinol.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of concomitant medication in combination with a mouthwash of delmopinol HCl 0.2% based on data from 8 phase III efficacy studies on the mouthwash. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data obtained from 8 previously performed phase III studies, carried out to document the clinical efficacy of a mouthwash of delmopinol HCl 0.2% with respect plaque and gingivitis, were used to analyse the use of concomitant medication. In these 8 randomised double-blind clinical phase III studies the patients were - in addition to their normal oral hygiene measures - treated for 2-6 months with mouthwashes containing delmopinol HCl 0.2%, delmopinol HCl 0.1%, chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2% or placebo. The number of visits in each study was three. Each time the patients visited the dentist for efficacy determinations, other data were also recorded. One of these was whether the patient had used any other medication during the study. In this paper, the number of treatments of different types of concomitant medication (antibiotics, nasal decongestants and others) was used as a basis for statistical comparisons between the different test groups. RESULTS: For antibiotics (all indications), a 27% lower number of treatments was obtained in the delmopinol 0.2% group in comparison with the placebo group, and a 41% decrease was observed for treatments with antibiotics for respiratory infections. For nasal decongestants, the number of treatments was 53% lower in the delmopinol 0.2% group. CONCLUSIONS: The delmopinol HCl 0.2% solution in patients with gingivitis provided a statistically significant reduction of concomitant use of antibiotics and nasal decongestants.

Chronic nasal dysfunction: A clinical case illustrating the concept in practice.

INTRODUCTION: We illustrate the diagnostic method for chronic nasal dysfunction by an observation in which the clinical history was compared to preoperative responses on the DyNaChron self-administered questionnaire, with ENT interpretation of the sinonasal CT scan preceding and guiding nasal endoscopy. CASE REPORT: The initial suspicion of rhinitis medicamentosa was transformed by the radiological and endoscopic findings of chronic respiratory rhinitis signs. Prick tests showing sensitivity to dust mites then suggested an allergic origin of the mucosal inflammation, which affected neither the olfactory nose nor the paranasal sinuses. A septal deviation hampering visualization of the right ethmoidal reliefs completed the clinical picture. Inferior turbinate hypertrophy secondary to allergic inflammation could have been aggravated by prolonged daily use of nasal vasoconstrictors. Failure of medical treatment combining nasal lavage, topical corticosteroids and an attempt at weaning led to effective medical and surgical management combining septoplasty, bilateral inferior turbinoplasty, continuation of topical corticosteroids and initiation of allergen immunotherapy. In addition to complete relief of nasal obstruction and abandonment of nasal vasoconstrictors, improved sense of smell completed the restoration of nasal comfort. DISCUSSION: It is helpful to conceive the nose as being anatomically and pathophysiologically a triple organ and to evaluate therapy in terms of improvement in each symptom.

Novel nasal formulation of xylometazoline with hyaluronic acid: In vitro ciliary beat frequency study.

Acute viral rhinosinusitis (viral ARS), or commonly referred to as the "common cold", is caused by respiratory viruses that cause disruption of the airway epithelial barrier and mucociliary dysfunction. Treatment of ARS is mainly symptomatic, with xylometazoline, a direct-acting α-adrenoceptor agonist, commonly used as a nasal decongestant. Unfortunately, this treatment does not resolve the epithelial dysfunction observed in ARS, and its use might negatively impact the nasal mucosa causing issues such as dryness, stinging, burning, rebound congestion, as well as atrophy. In light of this, a novel nasal spray formulation containing both xylometazoline and hyaluronic acid (HA) was developed to provide a more effective and safer treatment for viral ARS. HA is a natural polysaccharide known to hydrate and moisturise the upper respiratory tract, maintain the integrity of the nasal mucosa, and promote mucociliary clearance and wound healing. To investigate the potential of this combination, this study was conducted using the nasal MucilAirTMin vitro model and high-speed phase-contrast microscopy to examine the effect of xylometazoline and HA on ciliary function by measuring ciliary beat frequency and their cytotoxicity by morphological, histological and ultrastructural analysis. This research is the first to assess the effects of a specific dose and molecular weight of HA as an active pharmaceutical ingredient in nasal spray formulations. The combination of a fast-acting decongestant and an additional active agent targeting nasal epithelial dysfunction has the potential to provide an improved, reliable and safe treatment for viral ARS, and may serve as the basis for future clinical studies.

Can Sex Improve Nasal Function?-An Exploration of the Link Between Sex and Nasal Function.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to examine the impact of sexual activity on nasal breathing and compare such effect to that of a nasal decongestant. METHODS: We evaluated nasal breathing at 5 different times: (1) before sexual activity (baseline), (2) immediately after sexual activity, (3) 30 minutes, (4) 1 hour (5), and 3 hours after sexual climax. Same measurements were taken on the second day following application of nasal decongestant spray. For evaluation of nasal breathing, we used a visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, we used a portable rhinometric device to measure resistance and nasal flow. RESULTS: Nasal breathing improved significantly after sexual intercourse with climax to the same degree as after application of nasal decongestant for up to 60 minutes, as measured subjectively with the VAS (sex -3.6, P < .001; spray -3.2, P < .001). This was confirmed in the objective rhinometric data as mean nasal flow (mL/s) increased while resistance decreased immediately (flow sex +214, P < .001; flow spray +235, P < .001), 30 (flow sex +249, P < .001; flow spray +287, P < .001), and 60 minutes (flow sex +180, P < .001; flow spray +287, P < .001) post-intervention. Nasal breathing was back to the baseline level after 3 hours following sexual intercourse, while it continued to be improved for longer after application of nasal decongestant. Only participants having nasal obstruction (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score >30) showed nasal function improvement after sex. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual intercourse with climax can improve nasal breathing to the same degree as application of nasal decongestant for up to 60 minutes in patients having nasal obstruction.

Rhinomanometry with and without decongestant used to select children for adenoidectomy: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Adenoid hypertrophy may coexist, and often does, with rhinitis. Therefore, in some cases, adenoidectomy alone, despite the fact that it reduces nasal resistance, may be insufficient to restore nasal breathing. Juliusson et al. suggested using rhinomanometry with and without nasal decongestant as a method for selecting patients for adenoidectomy. In this study, we aim to assess whether the decongestant test, when using normative data, is useful to select children for adenoidectomy. METHODS: Children between 4 and 15 years old undergoing adenoidectomy were selected from two tertiary referral university hospitals. Participants underwent anterior active rhinomanometry with and without nasal decongestant before and after surgery. Parents fill in the sinus and nasal quality-of-life survey (SN5). RESULTS: 47 participants were included, and mean age 6.5 ± 2.15. 2 cohorts were defined according to the result of the nasal decongestant test (> 40% improvement in nasal resistance or not). There is a statistically significant difference between groups, with a higher improvement in nasal resistance and airflow after adenoidectomy in the group with less than 40% improvement in nasal resistance. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study supports the use of the decongestant test with rhinomanometry to select children for adenoidectomy; especially as it has proven to be a simple technique, harmless, fast, and easily performed on collaborative children.

Nocturnal nasal congestion is associated with uncontrolled blood pressure in patients with hypertension comorbid obstructive sleep apnea.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the independent role of nasal obstruction on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study comprised of 326 newly diagnosed OSA comorbid hypertension patients from March 2018 to December 2021. Sixty-six patients have controlled hypertension, two hundred and nine with uncontrolled hypertension and fifty-one with resistant hypertension. Information on demographic characteristics, sleep data, hypertension status was collected. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Patients with nocturnal nasal congestion had more difficult to control blood pressure, with more numbers of antihypertensive drugs. They tended to have more severe OSA, lower nocturnal oxygen saturation and more severe sleepiness. Univariate analysis showed that nocturnal nasal congestion and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) Scale scores were associated with uncontrolled BP. After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, OSA severity and CT90, multivariate logistic analysis models showed that nocturnal nasal congestion was independently associated with uncontrolled hypertension (OR = 2.09, p = 0.023). When analyzed more severe resistant hypertension, nocturnal nasal congestion showed a higher association (OR = 2.96, p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This cross-sectional study demonstrated that the nocturnal nasal congestion was independently associated with uncontrolled BP. The use of nasal decongestants or nasal surgery may be a potential therapeutic target for resistant hypertension in the future.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments. METHODS: Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS. CONCLUSION: After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

Natural Anti-inflammatory and Anti-allergy Agents: Herbs and Botanical Ingredients.

Allergies have been known to be an abnormally vigorous immune response in which the immune system fights off an allergen or antigen, initiating mast cells to release histamine into the blood. Substances that prevent mast cells from releasing histamine are considered antiallergic agents. The drugs utilized to treat allergy are mast cell stabilizers, steroids, anti-histamine, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and decongestants. Anti-histamine drugs have side effects such as drowsiness, confusion, constipation, difficulty urinating, blurred vision, etc. The use of medicinal plants for the effective and safe management of diseases has recently received much attention. Various herbs are utilized for their antiallergic and anti-histaminic properties. Some of the herbs useful in the management of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, like Piper longum, Ocimum tenuiflorum, Solanum xanthocarpum have been discussed. Ample scientific evidence is available for the anti-histaminic and antiallergic activity of Azadirachta indica, Aloe vera, Tinospora cordifolia, and many other such herbs are safer to use as antiallergic agents have been reported. The review summarizes a wide variety of herbs and botanical ingredients with their common scientific names and distribution for easy identification and usage as safe antiallergic agents and discusses their molecular mechanisms involved in combating allergic reactions.

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries.  Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness  10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62  95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17).  Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.

Chronic rhinosinusitis in cystic fibrosis: a review of therapeutic options.

PURPOSE: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is observed in almost 100% of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). CF-related CRS treatment is extremely challenging because of the underlying genetic defect leading to its development. CRS in CF is often refractory to standard therapy, while recurrences after surgical treatment are inevitable in the majority of patients. This study provides a precise review of the current knowledge regarding possible therapeutic options for CF-related CRS. METHODS: The Medline and Web of Science databases were searched without a time limit using the terms "cystic fibrosis" in conjunction with "otorhinolaryngological manifestation", "rhinology" and "sinusitis". RESULTS: Precise guidelines for CF-induced CRS therapy are lacking due to the lack of large cohort randomized controlled trials. None of the existing therapeutic agents has already been recommended for CRS in CF. Therapy targeting the underlying genetic defect, intranasal dornase alfa administration, and topical delivery of colistin and tobramycin showed promising results in CF-related CRS therapy. Besides the potential effectiveness of nasal steroids, strong recommendations for their usage in CF have not been provided yet. Systemic corticosteroid usage is controversial due to its potential negative influence on pulmonary disease. Ibuprofen revealed some positive effects on CF-related CRS in molecular and small cohort studies. Intranasal irrigation with saline solutions could relieve sinonasal symptoms. Nasal decongestants are not recommended. Endoscopic sinus surgery is the first-line surgical option for refractory CRS. Extensive surgical approaches should be considered as they could improve long-term outcomes in CRS. CONCLUSION: Further studies are warranted to establish consensus for CF-related CRS therapy.

Direct maxillary irrigation therapy in non-operated chronic sinusitis: a prospective randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of pharmacological therapy with and without direct maxillary sinus saline irrigation for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps. METHODS: In this prospective randomised controlled trial, 39 non-operated patients were randomly assigned to be treated with direct maxillary sinus saline irrigation in conjunction with systemic antibiotics and topical sprays (n = 24) or with pharmacological therapy alone (n = 15). Endoscopy, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test and Lund-MacKay computed tomography scores were obtained before, six weeks after and one to two years after treatment. RESULTS: Post-treatment Lund-Mackay computed tomography scores were significantly improved in both cohorts, with no inter-cohort difference identified. Post-treatment nasal endoscopy scores were significantly improved in the study group but were similar to those measured in the control group. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-20 results showed improvement in both cohorts, with no difference between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Maxillary sinus puncture and irrigation with saline, combined with pharmacological treatment improves endoscopic findings in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps, but has no beneficial effect on symptoms and imaging findings over conservative treatment alone.

Acute and Chronic Sinusitis.

Based on a review of the most current medical literature, this article outlines the basic concepts and classifications of rhinosinusitis, and delineates best practices for clinical diagnoses and the most up-to-date management strategies. Learning to recognize and differentiate these conditions helps facilitate appropriate and timely diagnoses as well as helping practitioners provide their patients with better counseling and care.

Prevention of middle ear barotrauma with oxymetazoline/fluticasone treatment.

Middle ear barotrauma (MEB) is a common complication of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy. It has been reported in more than 40% of HBO2 treatments and can interrupt the sequence of HBO2. MEB may lead to pain, tympanic membrane rupture, and even hearing loss. The aim of this study was to determine if pretreatment with intranasal fluticasone and oxymetazoline affected the incidence of MEB. We conducted a retrospective chart review of subjects undergoing HBO2 at our institution between February 1, 2014, and May 31, 2019. Subjects in the fluticasone/oxymetazoline (FOT) treatment group used intranasal fluticasone 50 mcg two times per day and oxymetazoline 0.05% one spray two times per day beginning 48 hours prior to initial HBO2. Oxymetazoline was discontinued after four days. Fluticasone was continued for the duration of HBO2 therapy. A total of 154 unique subjects underwent 5,683 HBO2 treatments: 39 unique subjects in the FOT group underwent 1,501 HBO2; 115 unique subjects in the nFOT (no oxymetazoline or fluticasone treatment) group underwent 4,182 HBO2 treatments. The incidence of MEB was 15.4% in the FOT group and 16.2% in the nFOT group. This was not a statistically significant difference (OR = 0.77; p = 0.636). Treatment pressure, age over 65 years, male sex, and BMI were not associated with a difference in MEB incidence. In summary, pretreatment with intranasal oxymetazoline and fluticasone in patients undergoing HBO2 did not significantly reduce MEB. More investigation with larger numbers of participants and prospective studies could further clarify this issue.

Decongestant use and the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: a case-crossover study.

Pharmacovigilance reports of cerebral and cardiovascular events in those who use decongestants have triggered alerts related to their use. We aimed to assess the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) associated with the use of decongestants. We conducted a nested case-crossover study of patients with incident stroke and MI identified in France between 2013 and 2016 in two systematic disease registries. Decongestant use in the three weeks preceding the event was assessed using a structured telephone interview. Conditional logistic multivariable models were used to estimate the odds of incident MI and stroke, also accounting for transient risk factors and comparing week 1 (index at-risk time window, immediately preceding the event) to week 3 (reference). Time-invariant risk factors were controlled by design. In total, 1394 patients with MI and 1403 patients with stroke, mainly 70 years old or younger, were interviewed, including 3.2% who used decongestants during the three weeks prior to the event (1.0% definite exposure in the index at-risk time window, 1.1% in the referent time window; adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.78; 95%CI, 0.43-1.42). Secondary analysis yielded similar results for individual events (MI/stroke). We observed no increased risk of MI or stroke for patients 70 years of age and younger without previous MI or stroke who used decongestants.