Search

Medical treatment options for patients with rhinitis during pregnancy need careful considerations. It is important to distinguish between the causes of rhinitis, as this can influence treatment. Conservative options are important for patients with pregnancy-induced rhinitis (PIR) and pre-existing allergic or non-allergic rhinitis. Education and knowledge that PIR symptoms will resolve after pregnancy can offer some relief. Other strategies such as exercise, positioning, saline nasal douching/lavage, and nasal valve dilators are safe in pregnancy and can have a benefit in these patients with rhinitis of any aetiology. The main medical therapies usually used in rhinitis cannot always be directly translated to pregnant patients due to potential teratogenic effects. Topical corticosteroids have generally shown to be safe with budesonide having the strongest recommendations. Oral corticosteroids are mostly used in moderate-severe disease and should be avoided in the first trimester. Oral decongestants have associations with cardiac, ear, gut and limb abnormalities and are not recommended in the first trimester. Loratadine and cetirizine have been the most well-studied second-generation antihistamines and are generally considered safe. There has been no reported increased risk of teratogenicity with anticholinergics or cromones, with the latter being one of the first line options in pregnant women with allergic rhinitis. The role of allergen immunotherapy needs further research, but current guidance states it can be continued if already initiated prior to pregnancy. The management of rhinitis in pregnancy can therefore be complex. This review aims to evaluate the current medical management options for rhinitis in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a heterogeneous group of inflammatory sinonasal disorders with key defining symptoms, but traditionally separated into phenotypes by clinical/endoscopic findings. It is not known whether the two phenotypes have differing socioeconomic, comorbidity, and lifestyle differences. This analysis of the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study (CRES) database sought to analyze any key differences in the socioeconomic variables between those with CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNPs) and those without nasal polyps (CRSsNPs). We also sought to analyze differences in comorbidities, lifestyle, and quality of life. Methods: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CRS in secondary and tertiary care outpatient settings in the UK were invited to participate in a questionnaire‐based case–control study. Variables included demographics, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) (level 3 evidence). Results: A total of 1204 patients' data were analyzed: 553 CRSsNP and 651 CRSwNP participants. The key socioeconomic variables did not demonstrate any notable differences, nor did lifestyle variables other than alcohol consumption being higher in those with CRSwNP (P =.032), but the latter was not significant after adjusting for age and sex. Aside from confirmation of asthma being more common in CRSwNP, it was notable that this group complained less of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), and CRSsNP participants showed evidence of worse HRQoL scores in respect of body pain (P =.001). Conclusions: Patients with CRSwNP experience higher rates of asthma and lower rates of URTIs; patients with CRSsNP have worse body pain scores. Otherwise, there are no demonstrable significant socioeconomic, comorbidity, lifestyle, or quality of life differences between the two phenotypes. Level of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:2179–2186, 2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We set out to create Consensus Guidelines, based on current evidence and relative risks of adverse effects and the costs of different treatments, which reflect the views of the British Rhinological Society (BRS) Council on where the use of biologics should be positioned within treatment pathways for CRSwNP, specifically in the setting of the National Health Service (NHS). Design: An expert panel of 16 members was assembled. A review of the literature and evidence synthesis was undertaken and circulated to the panel. We used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi‐step process to make recommendations on the use of biologics. Setting: N/A. Participants: N/A. Results: Recommendations were made, based on underlying disease severity, prior treatments and co‐morbidities. A group of patients for whom biologics were considered an appropriate treatment option for CRSwNP was defined. Conclusions: Although biologics are not currently available for the treatment of CRSwNP, the BRS Council have defined a group of patients who have higher rates of "failure" with current treatment pathways, higher resource use and are more likely to suffer with uncontrolled symptoms. We would urge NICE to consider approval of biologics for such indications without applying further restrictions on use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The primary aim of the study is to provide recommendations for the investigation and management of patients with new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Design: After undertaking a literature review, we used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi‐step process to reach consensus about treatment options, onward referral, and imaging. Setting and participants: An expert panel consisting of 15 members was assembled. A literature review was undertaken prior to the study and evidence was summarised for the panellists. Main outcome measures: The panel undertook a process of ranking and classifying appropriateness of different investigations and treatment options for new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using a 9‐point Likert scale, panellists scored whether a treatment was: Not recommended, optional, or recommended. Consensus was achieved when more than 70% of responses fell into the category defined by the mean. Results: Consensus was reached on the majority of statements after 2 rounds of ranking. Disagreement meant no recommendation was made regarding one treatment, using Vitamin A drops. Alpha‐lipoic acid was not recommended, olfactory training was recommended for all patients with persistent loss of sense of smell of more than 2 weeks duration, and oral steroids, steroid rinses, and omega 3 supplements may be considered on an individual basis. Recommendations regarding the need for referral and investigation have been made. Conclusion: This study identified the appropriateness of olfactory training, different medical treatment options, referral guidelines and imaging for patients with COVID‐19‐related loss of sense of smell. The guideline may evolve as our experience of COVID‐19 develops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The nasal septum is composed of cartilaginous and bony components and an understanding of each component volume is essential in both functional and cosmetic surgery.Objectives: We sought to radiographically measure septal dimensions on cross sectional computer tomography (CT) images, establishing average parameters for normal anatomy among a single, Caucasian population group.Methods: One hundred and fifty consecutive sinus CT scan images were examined and 100 cases with appropriate sagittal views were included in the study. On each septum, the sagittal CT images were assessed and 14 points were identified and 23 lengths measured and tabulated. Trigonometric formulae were used to accurately calculate surface areas of 11 resulting triangles which constituted the components of the nasal septum.Results: Measurements from 100 patients were included, with a mean age of 50.2 years, constituting 47 males and 53 females. Our surface area mapping established the following areas for both males and females respectively (mm2): quadrangular cartilage 1148 and 981; vomer 894 and 741; perpendicular plate of ethmoid bone 1244 and 1006; and total surface area 3287 and 2728. Our only statistically significant comparison in the series was found in the female series when age and reducing quadrilateral cartilage size were compared, highlighting reducing size with age (P = 0.04).Conclusions: The study presents the largest published data series representing nasal septal measurements on CT images in a living Caucasian population. Our data demonstrates that septal size remains constant after adolescence, throughout our age-varied series (18-79 years), except in the female population where the quadrilateral cartilage reduces in size with age.Level of Evidence4: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the surgical revision rate in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in the UK CRS Epidemiology Study (CRES). Previous evidence from National Sinonasal Audit showed that 1459 patients with CRS demonstrated a surgical revision rate 19.1% at 5 years, with highest rates seen in those with polyps (20.6%). Setting: Thirty secondary care centres around the UK. Participants: A total of 221 controls and 1249 patients with CRS were recruited to the study including those with polyps (CRSwNPs), without polyps (CRSsNPs) and with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS). Interventions: Self-administered questionnaire. Primary outcome measure: The need for previous sinonasal surgery. Results: A total of 651 patients with CRSwNPs, 553 with CRSsNPs and 45 with AFRS were included. A total of 396 (57%) patients with CRSwNPs/AFRS reported having undergone previous endoscopic nasal polypectomy (ENP), of which 182 of the 396 (46%) reported having received more than one operation. The mean number of previous surgeries per patient in the revision group was 3.3 (range 2-30) and a mean duration of time of 10 years since the last procedure. The average length of time since their first operation up to inclusion in the study was 15.5 years (range 0-74). Only 27.9% of all patients reporting a prior ENP had received concurrent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS; n=102). For comparison, surgical rates in patients with CRSsNPs were significantly lower; 13% of cases specifically reported ESS, and of those only 30% reported multiple procedures (χ²p<0.001). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that there is a high burden of both primary and revision surgery in patients with CRS, worst in those with AFRS and least in those with CRSsNPs. The burden of revision surgery appears unchanged in the decade since the Sinonasal Audit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common and debilitating disorder. Little is known about the epidemiology of this disease. The aims of the study were to identify differences in socio-economic variables and quality of life between patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and healthy controls, to identify any significant associations between CRS and other medical co-morbidities, psychiatric disease or environmental exposure and to explore the experience of CRS from the perspective of CRS sufferers., Methods: Participants were recruited from ENT clinics from 30 centres across the UK. They completed a study-specific questionnaire considering environmental, medical and socio-economic factors, and SF-36 and SNOT-22 scores. All participants with CRS were diagnosed by a clinician and categorised as having CRS (with polyposis, without polyposis or allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS)). Controls included family and friends of those attending ENT outpatient clinics and hospital staff who had no diagnosis of nose or sinus problems and had not been admitted to hospital in the previous 12 months., Results: A total of 1470 study participants (1249 patients and 221 controls) were included in the final analysis. Highly significant differences were seen in generic and disease-specific quality of life scores between CRS sufferers and controls; mean SNOT-22 score 45.0 for CRS compared with 12.1 amongst controls. There were no clear differences in socioeconomic variables including social class, index of multiple deprivation and educational attainment between cases and controls. Common comorbidities with a clear association included respiratory and psychiatric disorders, with a higher frequency of reported upper respiratory tract infections., Conclusions: CRS is associated with significant impairment in quality of life and with certain medical co-morbidities. In contrast to other common ENT disorders, no socioeconomic differences were found between patients and controls in this study.