Karen Head, Steve Sharp, Lee-Yee Chong, Claire Hopkins, Carl Philpott
Cochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, 18 - 24 Middle Way, Oxford, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 10;9(9):CD012453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012453.pub2.
This review adds to a series of reviews looking at primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and 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. Antifungals have been suggested as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.
To assess the effects of systemic and topical antifungal agents in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, including those with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) and, if possible, AFRS exclusively.
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 17 November 2017.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a two-week follow-up period comparing topical or systemic antifungals with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment, (c) other pharmacological interventions or (d) a different antifungal agent. We did not include post-surgical antifungal use.
We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the significant adverse effects of hepatic toxicity (systemic antifungals). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse effects of gastrointestinal disturbance (systemic antifungals) and epistaxis, headache or local discomfort (topical antifungals). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
We included eight studies (490 adult participants). The presence of nasal polyps on examination was an inclusion criterion in three studies, an exclusion criterion in one study and the remaining studies included a mixed population. No studies specifically investigated the effect of antifungals in patients with AFRS.Topical antifungal treatment versus placebo or no interventionWe included seven studies (437 participants) that used amphotericin B (six studies; 383 participants) and one that used fluconazole (54 participants). Different delivery methods, volumes and concentrations were used.Four studies reported disease-specific health-related quality of life using a range of instruments. We did not meta-analyse the results due to differences in the instruments used, and measurement and reporting methods. At the end of treatment (one to six months) none of the studies reported statistically significant differences between the groups (low-quality evidence - we are uncertain about the result).Two studies reported disease severity using patient-reported symptom scores. Meta-analysis was not possible. At the end of treatment (8 to 13 weeks) one study showed no difference and the second found that patients in the placebo group had less severe symptoms (very low-quality evidence - we are very uncertain about the result).In terms of adverse effects, topical antifungals may lead to more local irritation compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 8.62; 312 participants; 5 studies; low-quality evidence) but little or no difference in epistaxis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.63; 225 participants; 4 studies, low-quality evidence) or headache (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.63; 195 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies found a difference in generic health-related quality of life (one study) or endoscopic score (five studies) between the treatment groups. Three studies investigated CT scan; two found no difference between the groups and one found a significant decrease in the mean percentage of air space occluded, favouring the antifungal group.Systemic antifungal treatment versus placebo or no treatmentOne study (53 participants) comparing terbinafine tablets against placebo reported that there may be little or no difference between the groups in disease-specific health-related quality of life or disease severity score (both low-quality evidence). Systemic antifungals may lead to more hepatic toxicity events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60) but fewer gastrointestinal disturbances (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.36), compared to placebo, although the evidence was of low quality.This study did not find a difference in CT scan score between the groups. Generic health-related quality of life and endoscopic score were not measured.Other comparisonsWe found no studies that compared antifungal agents against other treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the very low quality of the evidence, it is uncertain whether or not the use of topical or systemic antifungals has an impact on patient outcomes in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis compared with placebo or no treatment. Studies including specific subgroups (i.e. AFRS) are lacking.
本综述是一系列关于慢性鼻窦炎患者初级药物治疗方案综述的一部分。慢性鼻窦炎很常见,其特征是鼻腔和鼻窦内衬炎症,导致鼻塞、流涕、面部压迫感/疼痛和嗅觉丧失。该病症可伴有或不伴有鼻息肉。抗真菌药物已被提议用于治疗慢性鼻窦炎。
评估全身和局部抗真菌药物对慢性鼻窦炎患者的疗效,包括变应性真菌性鼻窦炎(AFRS)患者,若可能,仅针对AFRS患者。
Cochrane耳鼻喉信息专家检索了Cochrane耳鼻喉试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science、ClinicalTrials.gov、ICTRP以及其他已发表和未发表试验的来源。检索日期为2017年11月17日。
随机对照试验(RCT),随访期至少两周,比较局部或全身抗真菌药物与(a)安慰剂、(b)不治疗、(c)其他药物干预或(d)不同抗真菌药物。我们未纳入术后使用抗真菌药物的研究。
我们采用了Cochrane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肝毒性(全身抗真菌药物)的显著不良反应。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)扫描评分以及胃肠道紊乱(全身抗真菌药物)和鼻出血、头痛或局部不适(局部抗真菌药物)的不良反应。我们使用GRADE评估每个结局的证据质量;以斜体表示。
我们纳入了八项研究(490名成年参与者)。三项研究将检查时存在鼻息肉作为纳入标准,一项研究将其作为排除标准,其余研究纳入了混合人群。没有研究专门调查抗真菌药物对AFRS患者的影响。
局部抗真菌治疗与安慰剂或不干预
我们纳入了七项研究(437名参与者),其中六项研究(383名参与者)使用了两性霉素B,一项研究(54名参与者)使用了氟康唑。使用了不同的给药方法、剂量和浓度。
四项研究使用一系列工具报告了疾病特异性健康相关生活质量。由于所用工具、测量和报告方法存在差异,我们未对结果进行荟萃分析。治疗结束时(1至6个月),没有研究报告两组之间存在统计学显著差异(低质量证据——我们对结果不确定)。
两项研究使用患者报告的症状评分报告了疾病严重程度。无法进行荟萃分析。治疗结束时(8至13周),一项研究显示无差异,另一项研究发现安慰剂组患者症状较轻(极低质量证据——我们对结果非常不确定)。
在不良反应方面,与安慰剂相比,局部抗真菌药物可能导致更多局部刺激(风险比(RR)2.29,95%置信区间(CI)0.61至8.62;312名参与者;5项研究;低质量证据),但鼻出血(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.14至6.63;225名参与者;4项研究,低质量证据)或头痛(RR 1.26,95%CI 0.60至2.63;|95名参与者;3项研究;极低质量证据)方面差异很小或无差异。
没有研究发现治疗组之间在一般健康相关生活质量(一项研究)或鼻内镜评分(五项研究)方面存在差异。三项研究调查了CT扫描;两项研究发现两组之间无差异,一项研究发现抗真菌药物组空气间隙阻塞的平均百分比显著降低。
全身抗真菌治疗与安慰剂或不治疗
一项比较特比萘芬片与安慰剂的研究(53名参与者)报告称,两组在疾病特异性健康相关生活质量或疾病严重程度评分方面可能差异很小或无差异(均为低质量证据)。与安慰剂相比,全身抗真菌药物可能导致更多肝毒性事件(RR 3.35,95%CI 0.14至78.60),但胃肠道紊乱较少(RR 0.37,95%CI 0.04至3.36),尽管证据质量较低。
这项研究未发现两组在CT扫描评分方面存在差异。未测量一般健康相关生活质量和鼻内镜评分。
其他比较
我们未发现比较抗真菌药物与慢性鼻窦炎其他治疗方法的研究。
由于证据质量极低,与安慰剂或不治疗相比,使用局部或全身抗真菌药物是否对成年慢性鼻窦炎患者的结局有影响尚不确定。缺乏包括特定亚组(即AFRS)的研究。