Prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical study to evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of long term mixed ultraviolet and visible light phototherapy in eosinophil nasal polyps

[Difficult-to-treat chronic rhinosinusitis-when the standard treatment is not effective and biologics are not available]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, significant improvements have been made in the treatment options for uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to standard medical and surgical therapy. This is the result of a better understanding of the pathophysiology and the resulting development of biologicals for CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, biologics are not (yet) available for all patients in Europe.

OBJECTIVE

Based on the session "Difficult-to-treat CRS, when biologics are not available" at the 29th Congress of the European Rhinologic Society (ERS) 2023 in Sofia, Bulgaria, the treatment options for uncontrolled CRS with the exclusion of biologics will be discussed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The content of the presentations "Is there a place for antibiotics?" "Indications for revision surgery," "Novel systemic treatment options," "Novel local treatment options," and "Phototherapy for nasal polyps" are outlined and supported by a review of the literature.

RESULTS

Various treatment options are available for managing uncontrolled CRS, even if biologic treatments are unavailable. Treatment options for type‑2 (T2) CRS include steroid rinses, repeated short-term oral steroids, steroid-eluting stents, and extended sinus surgery. In the case of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) desensitization can be considered. Non-T2 endotypes or CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) may benefit from several weeks of macrolides and xylitol rinses.

CONCLUSION

To accurately assess the efficacy of second-line therapies for treatment of difficult-to-treat CRS within an endotype-specific framework, additional controlled clinical trials are needed that take into account the heterogeneity of CRS endotypes.

Research Advances in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis by Probiotics

Allergic rhinitis (AR) impairs the quality of life of patients and reduces the efficiency of social work, it is an increasingly serious public medical and economic problem in the world. Conventional anti-allergic drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) can cause certain side effects, which limit the quality of life of patients. Therefore, it makes sense to look for other forms of treatment. Several studies in recent years have shown that probiotics have shown anti-allergic effects in various mouse and human studies. For example, the application of certain probiotic strains can effectively relieve the typical nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis in children and adults, thereby improving the quality of life and work efficiency. At the same time, previous studies in humans and mice have found that probiotics can produce multiple effects, such as reduction of Th2 cell inflammatory factors and/or increase of Th1 cell inflammatory factors, changes in allergy-related immunoglobulins and cell migration, regulate Th1/Th2 balance or restore intestinal microbiota disturbance. For patients with limited activity or allergic rhinitis with more attacks and longer attack duration, oral probiotics have positive effects. The efficacy of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of allergic rhinitis is remarkable, but its specific mechanism needs further study. This review summarizes the research progress of probiotics in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in recent years.

Rhinophototherapy, an alternative treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, mediated by immunoglobulin E, affecting 1 in 6 individuals. The treatment aims at attaining symptomatic control with minimal side effects, a requirement for new alternative therapies, including phototherapy, as it has an immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory effect.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the effectiveness of phototherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched Web of Science, Scielo, PubMed, SCOPUS, PEDro, and LILACS databases, using the terms: "intranasal irradiation", "phototherapy" and "allergic rhinitis". The R software Metafor package was used for the meta-analysis and the effect size was calculated for each symptom individually.

RESULTS

All symptoms decreased considerably after phototherapy: rhinorrhea (ES• = -1.35; p < 0.0001; I2 = 91.84%), sneezing (ES• = -1.24; p <  0.0001; I2 = 91.43%), nasal pruritus (ES• = -1.10; p < 0.0001; I2 = 91.43%); nasal obstruction (ES• = -1.11; p < 0.0001; I2 = 91.88%). The effects were more significant in perennial allergic rhinitis than in the seasonal type.

CONCLUSION

Considering the effect size and the statistical significance attained in our study, rhinophototherapy showed to be an effective treatment for reducing the nasal symptom scores triggered by AR.

Open, prospective, multicenter study on postoperative intranasal phototherapy in nasal polyposis

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic effect of ultraviolet (UV) light is generally attributed to its immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory effects. Since chronic inflammation is the major factor in the development of nasal polyposis, we have previously used mixed ultraviolet-visible light (mUV-VIS, Rhinolight®) phototherapy for the treatment of nasal polyps.

AIMS

In the present open, multicenter study, our aim was to delineate whether mUV-VIS applied postoperatively in vivo together with intranasal steroid treatment could reduce the recurrence of nasal polyps.

METHODS

After functional endoscopic sinus surgery, one group of patients received mUV-VIS light together with standard intranasal steroid (mometason furoate 2 × 200 μg) application for a 12-week treatment period, whereas the other patient group obtained only intranasal steroid for the same duration. We recorded nasal endoscopy images and obtained demographical and clinical data, total nasal score (TNS), and nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE). We performed acoustic rhinometry and measured nasal inspiratory peak flow. Follow-up was 12 months.

RESULTS

We found that the recurrence of nasal polyps was significantly diminished, and based on video-endoscopic measurements, the size and grade of recurrent polyps were significantly smaller in the phototherapy-receiving group. Nasal obstruction values and NOSE were significantly better throughout the follow-up period in the mUV-VIS light-treated group than in the intranasal steroid monotreatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rhinophototherapy together with standard nasal steroid application may have a supportive role in the treatment of recurrent bilateral nasal polyps.