Search

Systematic reviews are the most common form of knowledge synthesis and remain a cornerstone of the practice of evidence-based medicine. They offer enhanced rigor and validity relative to traditional narrative review articles by reducing bias and increasing objectivity. In answering focused research questions, systematic reviews are directly applicable to clinical practice as well as the development of clinical guidelines and the identification of knowledge gaps, which may drive future primary research directions. Typically, such a rigorous process necessarily requires substantive time to carefully and systematically identify, screen, and synthesize all relevant available primary research on a topic. Further, other knowledge synthesis methods have emerged to address the varying needs of decision makers with respect to condensed timelines and more diverse research questions, as well as to allow incorporation of already synthesized evidence into reviews. These alternative methods include rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of systematic reviews, which are being used with increasing frequency by clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers. We encourage clinicians and researchers in nuclear medicine and other imaging sciences to acquire a greater familiarity with these methods and to consider them in clinical decision making, the development of clinical guidelines, and the planning of future research activities.

S A T U R D A Y 174 Omalizumab for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Multi-Disciplinary Practice Review Shaun Kilty, MD, FRCSC, Andrea Lasso, Stephanie Santucci, RN, William H. Yang, MD; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Allergy and Asthma Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada, University of Ottawa Medical School, Ottawa, ON, Canada. RATIONALE: Recently, anti-IgE monoclonal antibody has emerged as a potential therapy for CRS. However, to date evidence for its efficacy in this patient population is sparse. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical treatment effect of omalizumab therapy for patients with recalcitrant CRS treated in a multi-disciplinary clinic. METHODS: The charts of 194 patients on omalizumabwere reviewed. 21 patients diagnosed with CRS and having failed surgical and/or medical therapy were identified. Data extraction was performed and targeted demographic details, asthma, environmental allergy and CRS specific disease related data including self-reported major symptom improvement. Nonparametric data was analysed with the Mann-Whitney test and binary data was analysed with Fisher’s exact test. RESULTS: Themean treatment durationwas17months.Themost common skin test positive environmental allergens were dust mites (100%) and cats (65%). 75% of the cohort had CRS with polyps. Six patients (30%) had AERD.Themeanpolyp score decreased from1.8 to 1.0 (p50.106). From the time of treatment initiation to the last omalizumab treatment dose, patients reported a mean 59% improvement in their olfaction, a mean 70.4% improvement in facial pain, a mean 78.2% improvement in nasal obstruction and a mean 68.1% improvement in the symptom of rhinorrhea. Patients reported a mean overall improvement in their sinus symptoms of 74.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab therapy provided a substantial improvement in the self-reported major symptom control for patients with recalcitrant CRS and asthma. Awell-designed comparative study is needed to further assess its effectiveness in the CRS population.