Clinical efficacy of intranasal drug delivery by nebulization in chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) aims to treat the underlying inflammation or infection. Although the optimal modality of administration remains controversial, inhalation route is usually preferred. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the efficacy of intranasal corticoisteroids or antibiotics delivery by nebulization on symptoms, histology, endoscopy scores, nasal obstruction, clinical outcomes and quality of life in CRS. METHOD: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled, comparative and cohort studies evaluating effects of treatment by nebulization in sinusitis were identified and reviewed from two databases (PubMed and Scopus). Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and reviewed the selected studies. RESULTS: 600 references were retrieved and 12 studies evaluating 377 patients were included in the systematic review. Different devices were used. Efficacy of nasal delivery by nebulization was systematically observed on symptoms and size of polyps and frequently on inflammatory parameters in all studies. The presence of polyps improved the efficacy of the nebulization. This way of delivery appears not convincing regarding antibiotics. Few side effects were noted in the retrieved studies and only for nebulized antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlighted that based on the present literature nebulization is not better than nasal spray to the delivery of corticosteroids due to the positive results on symptoms, endoscopic appearance and histological outcomes. For antibiotics delivery, the nebulization is not of added value.

Dyspnea could be accurately assessed by a caregiver in hospitalized patients with respiratory diseases: Interrater reliability and agreement study.

BACKGROUND: The perception of dyspnea is a subjective feeling typically self-assessed by the patient. However, the assessment by a caregiver is sometimes required. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to compare patient self-assessment and caregiver assessment of dyspnea (interrater reliability) using the modified Borg and visual analog scale (VAS) in hospitalized patients. The secondary aim was to compare dyspnea assessment between the two scales for patients and caregiver (inter-instrument reliability). METHODS: Self-assessment of dyspnea intensity of hospitalized patients with respiratory diseases was compared with caregiver's assessment. Dyspnea intensity was measured using two scales, the modified Borg scale (0-10 scale) and the 10 cm VAS. Mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between assessors (i.e. patient versus caregiver) were calculated for each scale. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 254 patients were recruited. The mean differences between patient and caregiver ratings were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.53) for the modified Borg scale and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.65) for the VAS scale. Interrater reliability was good for both scales with ICC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.84) for VAS and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.86) for the modified Borg scale. The mean differences in scores between scales were 0.93 (95% CI 0.69, 1.17) for patients' ratings and 0.88 (95% CI 0.72, 1.04) for caregiver's rating. The inter-instrument reliability was moderate to good and similar for both assessors. CONCLUSION: Dyspnea can be accurately estimated by caregivers when patients with lung diseases cannot self-report. Scores on the VAS to rate dyspnea were higher than the scores on the Borg scale.