Amphotericin B nasal lavages: not a solution for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Postoperative application of amphotericin B nasal spray in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, with a review of the antifungal therapy. Amphotericin B irrigation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Topical antifungal treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with intranasal amphotericin B: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial. Treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with high-dose oral terbinafine: a double blind, placebo-controlled study.
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is one of the most common chronic diseases. Recently, it has been suggested that an exaggerated immune response to fungi is crucial in the pathogenesis of the disease. On the basis of this hypothesis, intranasal treatment with amphotericin B should benefit patients with CRS. Data from 2 uncontrolled and 2 controlled trials are conflicting, however.
                To clarify the role of intranasal antifungal drugs in the treatment of CRS, we conducted a large, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study comparing the effectiveness of amphotericin B nasal lavages with placebo.
                A total of 116 randomly selected patients with CRS were instructed to instill 25 mL amphotericin B (100 microg/mL) or placebo to each nostril twice daily for 3 months. Primary outcomes included a reduction in total visual analog scale (VAS) score and nasal endoscopy score. Secondary outcome measures included peak nasal inspiratory flow, polyp score, quality of life (Short Form-36, Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measure-31), and individual VAS scores.
                Analysis was based on intention to treat and involved all patients randomly assigned. Mean VAS scores, Short Form-36 and Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measure-31 data, peak nasal inspiratory flow values, nasal endoscopy scores, and polyp scores were similar in both treatment groups at the time of randomization, and no significant differences were observed after 13 weeks of treatment.
                Amphotericin B nasal lavages in the described dosing and time schedule do not reduce clinical signs and symptoms in patients with CRS.
                Amphotericin B nasal lavages in the described dosing and time schedule are ineffective and therefore not advised in the treatment of patients with CRS. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) affects 1-4% of the adult population. The etiology of this multifactorial, chronic disease, which leads to a significant impairment of the quality of life, often accompanied by nasal polyposis, is not fully understood. In the past decade, it was presumed that the disease, which causes characteristic eosinophilic infiltration of the nasal mucosa, is triggered by an enhanced (but not classical allergic IgE-type) immune response against fungal organisms in the nasal mucus. If this supposition is correct, then it appears obvious that the administration of amphotericin B nasal spray in adequate concentration following endoscopic polypectomy should be advantageous for these patients, and might even reduce the number of recurrent cases. To check on this assumption, we conducted a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial involving 33 patients, 30 of whom remained in the study throughout. Patients with nasal polyposis were operated on with an endoscopic technique between 1 November 2005 and 1 October 2006; group A (14 randomly selected patients) were treated with a nasal spray containing 5 mg/ml amphotericin B, while the placebo group B (16 randomly selected patients) received a nasal spray lacking amphotericin B. We evaluated our results with the aid of a modified Lund-Mackay CT score, the SNAQ-11 test (which assesses changes in the symptoms), a quality of life test and endoscopy. The SPSS 14.0 for Windows program was utilized to process the data of examinations performed preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The CT scores of the group A patients 1 year after the operation exhibited wide scattering, without signs of recovery. The CT scores of the group B patients indicated a slight improvement, though this did not prove significant relative to group A. Both the SNAQ-11 test and the quality of life test revealed a significant improvement in each group, but the degrees of change in these tests did not differ significantly between the two groups of patients. The endoscopic findings indicated a slight improvement to the advantage of the amphotericin B-treated group 12 months after the operation. These results lead to the conclusion that the administration of amphotericin B nasal spray to patients operated on for nasal polyposis does not give rise to a significant alteration in either CT score, clinical symptoms, or quality of life. The more favorable clinical aspects observed in the amphotericin B-treated group during the endoscopic follow-up did not correspond to an improvement in the symptoms. In connection with the conclusions drawn from this study, the authors discuss the controversial data available on the fungal etiology of CRS. They critically analyze the contradictory observations and conclusions of seven recent clinical studies. Fungus-driven inflammation is proposed to play an important role in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Previous studies tested the efficacy of intranasal antifungal agents for patients with nasal polyps. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal amphotericin B (AMB) in patients who have CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP).
                Patients diagnosed with CRSsNP were enrolled in this study. They were assigned randomly to receive irrigation with AMB solution (20 mg of AMB in 500 mL of normal saline) or placebo (yellowish dye in 500 mL of normal saline) for 4 weeks. The outcome measures included the Chinese version of the Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measure 31 (CRSOM-31), nasal endoscopy, and bacterial and fungal cultures.
                Seventy patients were enrolled and 64 patients completed this study. There was significant improvement in the AMB group (n = 32) both in endoscopic (p = 0.013) and CRSOM-31 scores (p < 0.0001). The placebo group (n = 32) showed significant improvement in CRSOM-31 scores (p < 0.0001). CRSOM-31 scores were significantly lower in the AMB group than in the placebo group after 2-week treatment (p = 0.018) and remained lower after 4-week treatment, although the difference was not significant (p = 0.091). There were no significant differences in endoscopic scores and bacterial or fungal culture rates between two groups after treatment.
                Our results showed that AMB irrigation improved symptoms and endoscopic scores but did not show superiority to saline irrigation alone in patients who have CRSsNP. Recently, fungal elements were suspected to be the causative agent of chronic rhinosinusitis, and benefits of topical amphotericin B therapy have been reported.
                The effects of amphotericin B versus control nasal spray on chronic rhinosinusitis were compared in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.
                Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were administered 200 microL per nostril amphotericin B (3 mg/mL) or saline nasal spray 4 times daily over a period of 8 weeks. The response rate, defined as a 50% reduction of pretreatment computed tomography score, was the primary outcome variable. Additional outcome variables included a symptom score, a quality of life score, and an endoscopy score. Before and after treatment, nasal lavages were pretreated with dithiothreitol and examined for fungal elements by PCR and standard culture techniques.
                Seventy-eight patients were included, and 60 patients finished the study per protocol. In the control group, no positive response (0 of 32) was observed, and 2 of 28 patients responded in the amphotericin B group (P>.2). The symptom scores were distinctly worse after amphotericin B therapy (P <.005). The other parameters investigated did not differ remarkably between the treatment groups.
                Nasal amphotericin B spray in the described dosing and time schedule is ineffective and deteriorates patient symptoms. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is one of the most common chronic diseases. Its etiology is unknown, and there is a paucity of effective medical treatments.
                We tested the hypothesis that intranasal antifungal treatment improves the objective computed tomography (CT) findings (inflammatory mucosal thickening), nasal endoscopy stages, and symptoms of CRS.
                A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, single-center trial used amphotericin B to treat 30 randomly selected patients with CRS. Patients were instructed to instill 20 mL amphotericin B (250 mug/mL) or placebo to each nostril twice daily for 6 months. The primary outcome was a quantitative reduction in inflammatory mucosal thickening on CT scans of a standardized coronal cut. Secondary outcome measures were endoscopic scores, patient symptom scores, and levels of intranasal inflammatory mediators.
                Twenty-four patients completed the 6 months of treatment. Patients receiving amphotericin B achieved a relative reduction in the percentage of mucosal thickening on CT scans (n = 10; -8.8%) compared with placebo (n = 14; +2.5%; P = .030). Likewise, the changes in the endoscopic scores improved in the amphotericin B group compared with placebo ( P = .038). Between-group comparisons of the changes in the intranasal mucus levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin showed a reduction in the amphotericin B group and an increase in the placebo group ( P = .046); levels of IL-5 showed similar tendencies ( P = .082).
                Intranasal amphotericin B reduced inflammatory mucosal thickening on both CT scan and nasal endoscopy and decreased the levels of intranasal markers for eosinophilic inflammation in patients with CRS. To evaluate antifungal terbinafine in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter pilot study.
                Fifty-three adults with chronic rhinosinusitis received terbinafine 625 mg/day (n = 25) or placebo (n = 28) once daily for 6 weeks. Sinus secretions were collected at screening for mycology. Computed tomography was graded for extent of opacification at baseline and at week 6 using a modification of the Lund-Mackay scoring system. Patients recorded rhinosinusitis symptoms on a visual analogue scale and completed the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index.
                Positive fungal cultures were found in 41 of 53 patients (17 terbinafine, 24 placebo). (Two subjects from the Terbinafine group and one subject from the control group had no week 6 data). The mean opacification scores pre- and posttreatment for the entire study group improved from 24.2 to 22.5 in placebo (n = 26) and from 26.3 to 24.2 in terbinafine group (n = 23). The least squares means for percent change from baseline (SE) were -6.0 (8.7) for placebo compared with -7.2 (8.1) for terbinafine; 95% confidence interval for treatment difference (-18.9, 21.1); P = .91. Results were similar when only patients with positive fungal cultures were evaluated in the efficacy analysis. Investigator therapeutic evaluations and sinus symptom scores were not significantly different between the two groups at baseline or at treatment completion.
                Treatment with terbinafine failed to improve the symptoms or radiographic appearance of chronic rhinosinusitis even when nasal irrigation samples were positive for fungus on culture. One consideration is that the fungi isolated were not a major pathologic factor in this cohort. It is also possible that, even at high dose, terbinafine may not have maintained therapeutic levels in the nasal secretions.
On the basis of this meta-analysis, there is no evidence to support the use of either topical or systemic antifungal treatment in the management of CRS.