4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Intranasal antifungal treatment in 51 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

Journal

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 110, Issue 6, Pages 862-866

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mai.2002.130051

Keywords

eosinophils; antifungal; chronic sinusitis; nasal polyps; rhinosinusitis

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI49235, AI50494] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is the most common chronic disease that is frequently refractory to treatment. Objective: We sought to establish the safety and demonstrate the clinical efficacy of intranasal antifungal drug therapy in patients with CRS in a pilot trial. Methods: A prospective open-label trial used amphotericin B as a medical treatment in 51 randomly selected patients with CRS. The antifungal agent was applied intranasally as 20 mL of a 100 mug/mL solution twice daily. The outcome was measured by using their symptoms and by using an endoscopic scoring system in all patients. In addition, pretreatment and posttreatment coronal computed tomographic scans of the nose and sinuses were available for evaluation in 13 patients. Results: By using amphotericin B, improvement of sinusitis symptoms was observed in 38 (75%) of 51 patients. Endoscopically, 18 (35%) of 51 patients became disease free, and an additional 20 (39%) of 51 had improvement of at least one stage (P < .001). No effect was seen in 13 (25%) of 51 patients. The available computed tomographic scans before and after treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in the inflammatory mucosa thickening that had occluded the paranasal sinuses (P < .0001 in maxillary sinus). Conclusion: This open-label pilot trial demonstrates that direct mucoadministration of an antifungal drug appears to be both safe and effective in the treatment of patients with CRS. Therefore controlled and blinded trials are indicated to clarify the novel role of intranasal antifungal drugs in the treatment of CRS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available