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]

Purpose: It is unclear if septal deviation at the insertion points to the nasal cavity is associated with the overall septal deviation. This study aimed to assess septal deviation at the cribriform plate (CP) and maxillary crest (MC) using CT scans and to see if there was any correlation with overall septal deviation. Methods: All consecutive CT sinus scans between January 2020 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had a history of head, nasal or facial trauma, or any previous nasal surgical procedure. Angles between the septum and MC and the septum and CP as well as maximal angle of septal deviation (MSD) were measured. Results: A total of 70 scans were included in the final analysis. The mean MSD was 8.14°. The mean septal deviation was 0.89° at the CP and 2.02° at the MC. The correlation coefficient between the deviation at the CP and MSD was 0.025 and between the deviation at the MC and MSD was 0.321. Conclusion: Our data reveal a positive correlation between septal deviation at the floor of the nose and overall septal deviation; this was not observed at the septal deviation at the roof. This could be explained due to the inherent tilt in the cribriform plate or by earlier ossification and fixation of the septum during its development at its insertion to the roof, thereby allowing further growth and potential for deviation of the lower part of the septum and its insertion to the floor. [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: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]