Efficacy of the posterior nasal nerve resection combined with hormone transnasal nebulization on difficult-to-treat rhinosinusitis: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A retrospective analysis was performed to explore the clinical effect of the Posterior Nasal Nerve (PNN) resection combined with hormone transnasal nebulization on Difficult-to-Treat Rhinosinusitis (DTRS). METHODS: A total of 120 DTRS patients were selected and divided into a control group (n = 60) and a study group (n = 60) according to different treatments. The control group patients were treated via PNN resection, followed by normal saline transnasal nebulization; the study group patients were given PNN resection and then treated with budesonide suspension transnasal nebulization. Subsequently, the comparison was performed between the two groups in terms of (1) Clinical baseline characteristics; (2) Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 scores before treatment and after 3-months, 6-months and 12-months of treatment; (3) Lund-MacKay scores before treatment and after 10, 30, 90, and 180 days of treatment; (4) Incidence of adverse reactions during treatment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in SNOT-22 or Lund-Kennedy scores between the two groups before treatment (p > 0.05). After treatment, the SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy scores of the control and the study groups were decreased, and compared with the control group, the SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy scores in the study group improved more significantly (p < 0.05). In addition, the study group and the control group presented with 1 and 4 cases of nasal adhesion, 2 and 3 cases of epistaxis, 1 and 4 cases of sinus orifice obstruction, 1 and 3 cases of lacrimal duct injuries, respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (8.3% vs. 23.3%) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PNN resection combined with hormone transnasal nebulization treatment can improve the symptoms and quality of life of DTRS patients, with good clinical efficacy but few adverse reactions. Therefore, such combination treatment deserves a promotion and application clinically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Efficacy of Sublingual Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis Patients with Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been widely applied to treat patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, meta-analyses on the efficacy of SLIT in AR patients with asthma are still limited. METHODS: Literature without language limitation published before October 28, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. STATA 16.0 software was used for the meta-analysis of the extracted data. The results reported were symptom scores, drug scores, adverse effects rates, and cost of treatment. RESULTS: Ten studies involving 1722 patients met the inclusion criteria. The total rhinitis score (TRSS) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.23, 95% CI: -1.39--1.06, P < .001) and total asthma symptom score (TASS) (WMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.12-0.89, P < .001) were significantly lower in the SLIT group than the placebo group. The SLIT group had higher rates of treatment-related adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.77-4.48, P < .001) and total costs of treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97, P < .001). There was no significant difference in inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dose (P = .195), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (P = .158), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (P = .237), and direct costs of treatment (P = .630) between the SLIT and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: SLIT may be a therapeutic method for improving rhinitis symptoms and asthma symptoms in AR patients with asthma. However, as there was significant heterogeneity in results, more high-quality and well-designed studies are needed in the future to elucidate the efficacy of SLIT.

Effect of azelastine hydrochloride combined with montelukast sodium in the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride combined with montelukast sodium in the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A total of 137 patients with allergic rhinitis in our hospital were divided into two groups, 70 patients in the experimental group received azelastine hydrochloride combined with montelukast sodium treatment, while 67 patients in the control group were given only azelastine hydrochloride treatment. The clinical therapeutic effect, clinical symptom score and serum levels of inflammatory factors were recorded. RESULTS: The clinical therapeutic effect of the two groups after treatment were improved compared to those without intervention (P < 0.05), and the total effective rate of the experimental group was 94.3% (66/70), which was higher than that of the control group (83.6%). The clinical symptom score (nasal itching, nasal congestion and runny nose) of two groups was decreased after receiving the intervention, and the scores in the experimental group were much lower than the control group after receiving the intervention (P < 0.05). The serum levels of inflammatory factors (IL-6, IL-8 and hsCRP) were obviously lower in the two groups after treatment, and those levels in the experimental group were much lower than the control group after receiving the intervention. Furthermore, after the receiving treatment, the levels of each of the inflammatory and anti-inflammatory factors in the experimental group were significantly ameliorated compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Azelastine hydrochloride combined with montelukast sodium can effectively improve clinical symptoms and inflammatory reactions in patients with allergic rhinitis; furthermore, this research provides ideas for clinical practice.