OBJECTIVE: This review aims to determine medication adherence, sensory attributes and adverse effects of INCS in AR patients.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane database was conducted for English articles published from 2004 to 2023. Eligibility includes clinical trials and observational studies with adult patients (18 years old or older) receiving INCS for AR (both intermittent and persistent).
RESULTS: Thirty-one studies with 10,582 patients, comprising 10 cross-sectional studies and 21 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. Adherence rates ranged from 28% to 87%, with an average of 55.8%. Forgetfulness was the primary reason for non-adherence (63.1-77.8%), followed by adverse events (26.4-61.5%) and fear of adverse events (3.8-31.5%). Scent (38%), taste (28.5%), or aftertaste (24.3%) were the main differentiators for sensory attribute, with varying levels of intensity and preferences for each INCS. Common adverse events encompass epistaxis, nasal dryness/irritation, headache and nasopharyngitis. A meta-analysis of eight RCT detected no significant difference in adverse events between the INCS and control groups (risk ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.24; p = 0.61).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate that medication adherence to INCS is not optimal, with non-adherence mostly attributed to forgetfulness, preferences for sensory attributes, and unpleasant effects associated with INCS. The underlying factors should be addressed as part of a multimodal strategy to improve adherence.
Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital was performed. Adult patients diagnosed with CRSwNP who had both allergology and radiological assessments were enrolled. The symptoms of allergic rhinitis, Lund-Kennedy (LK) endoscopic scoring, Lund-Mackay (LM) computed tomography scan of paranasal sinuses (CTPNS) scoring, CCAD features, skin prick test (SPT) and level of specific IgE were assessed. All the patients underwent SPT for house dust mites.
Results: A total of 38 patients were enrolled. Symptoms, endoscopic and CTPNS scores were higher in the allergy and CCAD groups compared to the nonallergy and nonCCAD groups. The symptom of "need to blow nose" was statistically significant in allergy vs nonallergy (p=0.01) and CCAD vs nonCCAD (p=0.02). There were significant differences in the endoscopic scores in both allergy and CCAD (allergy vs nonallergy, p=0.01; CCAD vs nonCCAD, p=0.03), and CT scores in both allergy and CCAD (allergy vs nonallergy, p=0.02; CCAD vs nonCCAD, p=0.02). All patients with CCAD have worse scoring than nonCCAD (LK score, p=0.03; LM score, p=0.02). Patients with allergy have more polypoidal involvement of the middle turbinates (left middle turbinate, p=0.141; right middle turbinate, p=0.074) and CCAD (left middle turbinate, p=0.017; right middle turbinate, p=0.009) than nonallergy and nonCCAD patients.
Conclusion: Allergic phenotype of CRSwNP has a worse clinical and radiological disease burden. Optimal treatment of allergy is essential for a better outcome.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on consecutive adults with non-allergic rhinitis. The reflux symptom index (score of more than 13 = laryngopharyngeal reflux) and nasal symptoms (categorised as mild (total score of 0-3), moderate (4-7) or severe (8-12)) were assessed.
RESULTS: The study included 227 participants (aged 58.64 ± 12.39 years, 59.5 per cent female). The reflux symptom index scores increased with total nasal symptom scores (mild vs moderate vs severe, 8.61 ± 6.27 vs 12.94 ± 7.4 vs 16.40 ± 8.10; p < 0.01). Logistic regression indicated that laryngopharyngeal reflux is more likely in patients with severe nose block (odds ratio 5.47 (95 per cent confidence interval = 2.16-13.87); p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms are associated with nasal symptom severity, and nasal symptoms should be primarily treated. Those with predominant nose block and laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms are more likely to have laryngopharyngeal reflux.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional comparative study was carried out in the Otorhinolaryngology - HNS Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC). Subjective assessments of nasal symptoms and quality of life (QoL) using SNOT-22 and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and objective endoscopic assessment was undertaken using a modified Hadley endoscopic examination.
RESULTS: There was no significant statistical difference in the quality of life between the ECRSwNP and non-ECRSwNP groups as evidenced by the SNOT-22 score and the VAS comparison (p>0.05). However, there was a significant difference in terms of recurrence of disease with the presence of nasal polyps on endoscopic examination. (p = 0.016) CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we found that there is no significant difference in QoL between ECRSwNP and non- ECRSwNP. There is higher frequency of recurrence of nasal polyps amongst ECRSwNP.
METHODS: Medline (1946-) and Embase (1947-) were searched until 23rd January 2019 for original studies. A meta-analysis was performed of remission and recurrence rates. Studies were excluded if patients had prior radiosurgery/radiotherapy, mixed pathologies or interventions without separated data, follow-up not reported or population size
METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving patients with coronavirus disease 2019 self-perceived as asymptomatic was conducted. Assessments included the subjective Malaysian Smell and Taste Questionnaire and the culturally adapted Malaysian version of the objective Sniffin' Sticks Identification smell test.
RESULTS: In 81 participants (mean age of 31.59 ± 12.04 years), with mean time from diagnosis to smell test of 7.47 ± 3.79 days, subjective assessment showed that 80.2 per cent were asymptomatic (questionnaire score of 6) and 19 per cent had mild symptoms (questionnaire score of 7 and 8). The mean objective smell test score was 10.89 ± 2.11. The prevalence of olfactory impairment was 76.6 per cent among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 self-perceived as asymptomatic. There was no association between the questionnaire and the smell test scores (p = 0.25). There was a correlation between the smell test score and the duration from diagnosis to smell test (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: The objective assessment demonstrated that coronavirus disease 2019 patients who perceived themselves as asymptomatic showed olfactory impairment.
METHODS: Narrative review of the literature, identifying and describing outcome measures that may be used in the evaluation of CRSwNP and for assessment of treatment responses.
RESULTS: In this review, we identify many different outcome measures for CRSwNP that fall under the categories of PROM, objective test, psychophysical test or biomarker. We describe the history of each - including seminal studies - and demonstrate the formal validation, psychometric performance, and limitations of each.
CONCLUSIONS: PROMs, objective tests, psychophysical tests and biomarkers represent different classes of outcome measures that are complementary means of assessing CRSwNP disease status and treatment efficacy. The choice or interpretation of a CRSwNP outcome measure should be undertaken with full knowledge of its formal validation, psychometric performance, and limitations.