Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2022
Review of evidence supporting the use of nasal corticosteroid irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis.
МетаанализСтатьяОбзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bernstein Jonathan A, White Andrew A, Han Joseph K, Lang David M, Elkayam David, Baroody Fuad M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze published reports on the efficacy and safety of CSI in CRS and evaluate the clinical implications of current gaps in evidence. Corticosteroid irrigation (CSI) is commonly used for management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps; however, such use is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
DATA SOURCES: Publications were obtained through PubMed searches through January 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: Searches were conducted using 2 terms: "chronic rhinosinusitis" or "nasal polyps" as the first term and "corticosteroid irrigation," "steroid nasal lavage," or "sinus rinse" as the second term. We reviewed relevant, peer-reviewed literature (19 original research [9 controlled, 10 uncontrolled trials], 7 reviews, and 1 meta-analysis) reporting safety and efficacy of CSI in patients with CRS.
RESULTS: Studies were difficult to compare because they used a variety of solution volumes (60 mL to 125 mL per nostril), corticosteroid agents (budesonide, betamethasone, mometasone, or fluticasone), corticosteroid doses, preparation protocols (by compounding pharmacy or by patient), and administration (frequency, time of day, body positioning). It is difficult to determine which parameters might substantially influence clinical effects because studies were generally small, showed marginal benefits, and rarely assessed safety. To date, no studies evaluating CSI have shown statistically significant differences in a type-I error-controlled primary end point over any comparator, possibly owing to small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION: Designing more robust clinical trials may help determine whether CSI is a valid treatment option. Until more evidence supporting CSI use exists, health care professionals should strongly consider choosing FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of CRS.
DATA SOURCES: Publications were obtained through PubMed searches through January 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: Searches were conducted using 2 terms: "chronic rhinosinusitis" or "nasal polyps" as the first term and "corticosteroid irrigation," "steroid nasal lavage," or "sinus rinse" as the second term. We reviewed relevant, peer-reviewed literature (19 original research [9 controlled, 10 uncontrolled trials], 7 reviews, and 1 meta-analysis) reporting safety and efficacy of CSI in patients with CRS.
RESULTS: Studies were difficult to compare because they used a variety of solution volumes (60 mL to 125 mL per nostril), corticosteroid agents (budesonide, betamethasone, mometasone, or fluticasone), corticosteroid doses, preparation protocols (by compounding pharmacy or by patient), and administration (frequency, time of day, body positioning). It is difficult to determine which parameters might substantially influence clinical effects because studies were generally small, showed marginal benefits, and rarely assessed safety. To date, no studies evaluating CSI have shown statistically significant differences in a type-I error-controlled primary end point over any comparator, possibly owing to small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION: Designing more robust clinical trials may help determine whether CSI is a valid treatment option. Until more evidence supporting CSI use exists, health care professionals should strongly consider choosing FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of CRS.