Premium
Long‐term low‐dose macrolides for chronic rhinosinusitis in adults – a systematic review of the literature
Author(s) -
Lasso A.,
Masoudian P.,
Quinn J.G.,
Cowan J.,
Labajian V.,
Bonaparte J.P.,
Kilty S.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/coa.12787
Subject(s) - medicine , chronic rhinosinusitis , systematic review , term (time) , intensive care medicine , medline , dermatology , political science , law , physics , quantum mechanics
Background Chronic rhinosinusitis is a very common inflammatory disease that impairs quality of life and is associated with high healthcare spending. Chronic rhinosinusitis treatment commonly involves the use of intranasal corticosteroids, oral antibiotics, and surgery. Macrolides have been identified as a potential treatment option for chronic rhinosinusitis due to their immunomodulatory effects; however, the evidence supporting their use is still conflicting. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate new evidence along with previously reported studies of the use of macrolides in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Search strategy Medline, EMBASE , Cochrane CENTRAL , LILACS , clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were all searched (until June 2015 Medline and EMBASE searches were updated January 2016). Randomised controlled trials comparing low‐dose macrolide antibiotics versus placebo, as an adjunct to other therapies, or low‐dose macrolide therapy alone versus other therapies were included in this review. Evaluation method Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% confidence interval. Data were pooled using fixed‐effects models. Results Nine randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Studies were classified into three distinct comparisons: Low‐dose macrolide therapy vs. placebo, low‐dose macrolide +/− nasal steroids vs. nasal steroid and low‐dose macrolides vs. other therapies. The overall quality of the evidence is low due to limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness. Conclusions Positive results were seen with the use of macrolide therapy in the postoperative period in patients with nasal polyps. A firm conclusion with respect to the effectiveness of the use of macrolides for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis cannot be reached based on the available evidence. Further study using a placebo‐controlled design evaluating the use of macrolides in clearly defined chronic rhinosinusitis populations is needed.