Head Karen, Chong Lee Yee, Piromchai Patorn, Hopkins Claire, Philpott Carl, Schilder Anne G M, Burton Martin J
UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, 18 - 24 Middle Way, Oxford, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 26;4(4):CD011994. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011994.pub2.
This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms.
To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions.
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
We included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention.The varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo Three studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants).One study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups.One study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids One study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for "desperately worse" to 2 for "cured") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later. Systemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroids One study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroids One study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found.Despite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported.No RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria.More research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.
本综述是六项关于慢性鼻窦炎患者主要药物治疗方案研究中的一项。慢性鼻窦炎很常见,其特征是鼻腔和鼻窦内衬的炎症,导致鼻塞、流涕、面部压迫感/疼痛以及嗅觉丧失。该病症可伴有或不伴有鼻息肉。全身和局部使用抗生素旨在短期内消除感染(部分还可长期减轻炎症),以使鼻腔黏液恢复正常并改善症状。
评估全身和局部使用抗生素对慢性鼻窦炎患者的疗效。
Cochrane耳鼻喉科信息专家检索了Cochrane耳鼻喉科试验注册库、CENTRAL(2015年第8期)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、ClinicalTrials.gov、ICTRP以及其他已发表和未发表试验的来源。检索日期为2015年9月29日。
随访期至少三个月的随机对照试验(RCT),比较全身或局部抗生素治疗与(a)安慰剂或(b)不治疗或(c)其他药物干预。
我们采用了Cochrane预期的标准方法程序。我们的主要结局是疾病特异性健康相关生活质量(HRQL)、患者报告的疾病严重程度以及最常见的不良事件——胃肠道不适。次要结局包括一般HRQL、鼻内镜下鼻息肉评分、计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描评分以及疑似过敏反应(皮疹或皮肤刺激)和过敏反应或其他非常严重反应的不良事件。我们使用GRADE评估每个结局的证据质量;这在文中用斜体表示。
我们纳入了五项RCT(293名参与者),所有这些研究都比较了全身抗生素与安慰剂或其他药物干预。不同的研究特征使得比较变得困难。四项研究仅招募成年人,一项仅招募儿童。三项使用大环内酯类抗生素,一项使用四环素,一项使用头孢菌素类抗生素。三项研究仅招募无鼻息肉慢性鼻窦炎患者,一项招募有鼻息肉慢性鼻窦炎患者,一项研究对象为混合人群。三项研究在治疗结束后对患者随访10至12周。全身抗生素与安慰剂:三项研究比较了抗生素与安慰剂(176名参与者)。一项研究(64名无息肉参与者)使用SNOT - 20(0至5分,0 = 最佳生活质量)报告疾病特异性HRQL。在治疗结束时(三个月),接受大环内酯类抗生素治疗的组SNOT - 20评分低于安慰剂组(平均差值(MD) - 0.54分,95%置信区间(CI) - 0.98至 - 0.10),这对应于有利于抗生素的中等效应量(中等质量证据)。治疗三个月后,两组之间是否存在差异尚不确定。一项研究(33名有息肉参与者)提供了关于短期使用四环素抗生素与安慰剂相比后的胃肠道不适和疑似过敏反应(皮疹或皮肤刺激)的信息。我们非常不确定抗生素是否与胃肠道不适增加(风险比(RR)1.36,95% CI 0.22至8.50)或皮肤刺激(RR 6.67,95% CI 0.34至128.86)有关(极低质量证据)。全身抗生素加盐水冲洗和鼻内糖皮质激素与安慰剂加盐水冲洗和鼻内糖皮质激素:一项研究(60名参与者,部分有息肉部分无息肉)比较了为期三个月的大环内酯类抗生素疗程与安慰剂;所有参与者均使用盐水冲洗,70%使用鼻内糖皮质激素。使用SNOT - 22(0至110分,0 = 最佳生活质量)报告疾病特异性HRQL。数据难以解释(高度偏态且基线不平衡),目前尚不清楚在任何时间点是否存在重要差异(低质量证据)。为评估患者报告的疾病严重程度,参与者在治疗结束时(三个月)对治疗效果进行五分制评分(从“极度恶化”的 - 2分到“治愈”的2分)。在症状改善方面,抗生素组和安慰剂组之间没有差异;RR为1.50(95% CI 0.81至2.79;极低质量证据),尽管抗生素组中治疗后感觉更差的人数也略多。两组之间胃肠道不适发生率没有明显差异(RR 1.07,95% CI 0.16至7.10)。使用SF - 36测量一般HRQL。作者指出,在治疗结束时(12周)或两周后两组之间没有差异。全身抗生素与鼻内糖皮质激素:一项研究(43名无息肉参与者)比较了为期三个月的大环内酯类抗生素疗程与鼻内糖皮质激素。使用综合症状评分(0至40分;0 = 无症状)评估患者报告的疾病严重程度。由于两组患者报告的疾病严重程度相似,因此非常不确定是否存在差异(MD - 0.32,95% CI - 2.11至1.47;低质量证据)。全身抗生素与口服糖皮质激素:一项研究(28名有息肉参与者)比较了短期四环素抗生素疗程(持续时间不明,约20天)与为期20天的口服糖皮质激素疗程。我们无法提取任何主要疗效结局的数据。由于这些结局在两组之间的结果相似,因此不确定胃肠道不适(RR 1.00,95% CI 0.16至6.14)或皮肤刺激(RR 2.00,95% CI 0.20至19.62)是否存在差异(极低质量证据)。
我们发现几乎没有证据表明全身抗生素对慢性鼻窦炎患者有效。我们确实发现有中等质量证据表明,无息肉的慢性鼻窦炎成年患者接受三个月大环内酯类抗生素治疗后,疾病特异性生活质量有适度改善。改善程度中等(五分制量表上0.5分),且仅在三个月治疗结束时出现;三个月后未发现差异。尽管人们普遍认为抗生素可能会带来包括胃肠道不适在内的不良反应,但本综述中的结果非常不确定,因为研究规模较小且报告的事件较少。没有局部抗生素的RCT符合纳入标准。该领域需要更多研究,特别是评估长期结局和不良反应。