Search

Introduction  Comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) is present in up to 25% of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) cases and provides prognostic information for patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Clinical visits offer an opportunity to identify at-risk patients. Objective  The purpose of the present study is to evaluate practice patterns among members of the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) in screening for/diagnosing MDD. Methods  A 21-question survey was distributed to 1,206 members of the ARS from May 26, 2018 to June 12, 2018. The impact of demographic factors, including hospital setting, fellowship status, and experience were assessed through chi-squared analysis. Results  A total of 80 members of the ARS completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 7%. Half of the respondents worked in academic settings and 43% had completed a rhinology fellowship. Twenty percent of the participants felt comfortable diagnosing or managing MDD, while only 10% of participants screened for MDD in patients with CRS. Respondents cited a lack of training (76%) and unfamiliarity with diagnostic criteria (76%) as barriers to the routine assessment of MDD. Most respondents (95%) considered comorbid psychiatric illness to negatively impact outcomes following ESS. Fellowship-trained respondents were significantly more likely to implement screening tools in their practice ( p  = 0.05), and believe in the negative impact of MDD on postoperative outcomes ( p  = 0.007), cost of care ( p  = 0.04) and quality of life ( p  = 0.047). Conclusion  Amongst ARS members, 95% of the respondents consider comorbid MDD to negatively impact patient outcomes following ESS. Regardless, a large proportion of surgeons neither screen nor feel comfortable diagnosing MDD.

BackgroundEndoscopic endonasal approaches pose the potential risk of olfactory loss. Loss of olfaction and potentially taste can be permanent and greatly affect patients' quality of life. Treatments for olfactory loss have had limited success. Omega-3 supplementation may be a therapeutic option with its effect on wound healing and nerve regeneration.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact on olfaction in patients treated with omega-3 supplementation following endoscopic skull base tumor resection.MethodsIn this multi-institutional, prospective, randomized controlled trial, 110 patients with sellar or parasellar tumors undergoing endoscopic resection were randomized to nasal saline irrigations or nasal saline irrigations plus omega-3 supplementation. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was administered preoperatively and at 6 wk, 3 mo, and 6 mo postoperatively.ResultsEighty-seven patients completed all 6 mo of follow-up (41 control arm, 46 omega-3 arm). At 6 wk postoperatively, 25% of patients in both groups experienced a clinically significant loss in olfaction. At 3 and 6 mo, patients receiving omega-3 demonstrated significantly less persistent olfactory loss compared to patients without supplementation (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). After controlling for multiple confounding variables, omega-3 supplementation was found to be protective against olfactory loss (odds ratio [OR] 0.05, 95% CI 0.003-0.81, P = .03). Tumor functionality was a significant independent predictor for olfactory loss (OR 32.7, 95% CI 1.15-929.5, P = .04).ConclusionOmega-3 supplementation appears to be protective for the olfactory system during the healing period in patients who undergo endoscopic resection of sellar and parasellar masses.

Tight junctions regulate epithelial barrier function and have been shown to be influenced by multiple classes of proteins. Apical integrins have been identified as potential regulators of epithelial barrier function; however, only indirect approaches have been used to measure integrin regulation of the epithelial barrier. Here, we used polymeric nanowires conjugated with anti-integrin β1 antibodies to specifically target apically localized integrins in either their closed or open conformation. Barrier regulation by apical integrins was found to be conformation specific. Nanowires targeting integrins in the closed conformation increased epithelial permeability and caused zonula occludens-1 (ZO-1, also known as TJP1) to change from a linear to a ruffledmorphology. Claudin-2 and claudin-4 colocalized with ZO-1 and were also ruffled; however, claudin-1 and claudin-7 remained linear. Ruffling was dependent on myosin light chain kinases (MLCKs) and Rho kinases (ROCKs). Conversely, targeting integrins in the open conformation decreased epithelial permeability and made junctions more linearized. Anti-integrin β1 nanowires differentially affected actin and talin (analyzed using pan-talin antibodies), depending on whether they contained activating or inhibitory antibodies. Thus, apical integrins can act as a conformation-sensitive switch that regulates epithelial barrier function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundCritical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).MethodsUsing previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.ResultsThe ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.ConclusionThis critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is critical for patient management and infection control (1). Molecular diagnostics are highly sensitive in the acute phase of [...]

BackgroundPsychological dysfunction is highly prevalent among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Previous study has identified various measures of anxiety and depression as predictors of quality-of-life outcomes following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Psychological dysfunction scores, as measured by the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), have been found to influence treatment decision making in CRS. This study aims to further elucidate improvement in discrete psychological symptoms following ESS for CRS.MethodsAdult patients with medically recalcitrant CRS electing to undergo ESS were prospectively enrolled into a multi-institutional, observational cohort. Psychological-related symptom severity and postoperative outcomes were assessed using psychological domain items of the SNOT-22, including subgroup analysis of patients with and without comorbid depression.ResultsA total of 374 participants met inclusion criteria and were followed postoperatively for a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 14.6 ± 5.0 months. Total mean psychological domain scores improved from 15.9 ± 8.2 to 8.5 ± 8.4 (p < 0.001). Significant relative mean improvements were reported in "waking up tired" (23%; p < 0.001), "fatigue" (25%; p < 0.001), "reduced productivity" (28%; p < 0.001), "reduced concentration" (27%; p < 0.001), " frustrated/restless/irritable" (27%; p < 0.001), "sad" (15%; p < 0.001), and "embarrassed" (8%; p < 0.001) scores. A total of 64% to 66% of participants reported improvement in "reduced productivity," "waking up tired," "fatigue," and "frustrated/restless/irritable," compared to 46% and 38% reporting improvement in "sad" and "embarrassed," respectively.ConclusionPatients with CRS report significant improvement in common mental health-related symptoms following ESS. Despite these improvements, some degree of persistent postoperative psychological dysfunction was reported. Further study is necessary to determine which factors are associated with persistent psychological dysfunction after ESS in order to optimize treatment outcomes.

Key points In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and comorbid asthma, patients with surgical intervention required less asthma rescue medication, as compared to those who did not undergo surgery. Following sinus surgery, patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and asthma required more asthma medication, as compared to the time period prior to surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence‐based recommendations for improved patient care. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence‐based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence‐based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. Action Statements: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre‐ and co‐seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta‐blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence‐based recommendations for improved patient care. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence‐based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence‐based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. Action Statements: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre‐ and co‐seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta‐blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]