Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

درمان رینوسینوزیت مزمن با استفاده از استروئیدهای خوراکی به‌ عنوان درمان کمکی طی یک دوره درمانی کوتاه مدت

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011992.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 26 abril 2016see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Enfermedades de oído, nariz y garganta

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Karen Head

    Correspondencia a: UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK

    [email protected]

  • Lee Yee Chong

    UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK

  • Claire Hopkins

    ENT Department, Guy's Hospital, London, UK

  • Carl Philpott

    Department of Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

  • Anne GM Schilder

    evidENT, Ear Institute, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK

  • Martin J Burton

    UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK

Contributions of authors

Karen Head: reviewed and edited the protocol, screened abstracts and the full text of papers, extracted data from the included studies, completed the data analysis and drafted the text of the review report.

Lee Yee Chong: scoped, designed and wrote the protocol, screened abstracts and the full text of papers, extracted data from the included studies and helped to draft and review the text of the report.

Claire Hopkins: clinical guidance at all stages of project scoping and protocol development. Clinical input into data analysis, reviewing and editing the report.

Carl Philpott: clinical guidance at all stages of project scoping and protocol development. Clinical input into data analysis, reviewing and editing the report.

Martin J Burton: helped to draft the protocol; clinical guidance at all stages of project scoping and protocol development. Clinical input into data analysis, reviewing and editing the report.

Anne GM Schilder: clinical input into data analysis, reviewing and editing the report.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • National Institute for Health Research, UK.

    Funding to complete a suite of reviews on medical interventions for chronic rhinosinusitis in 2015/2016 (award reference 14/174/03), in addition to infrastructure funding for Cochrane ENT

Declarations of interest

Lee Yee Chong: none known.

Karen Head: none known.

Claire Hopkins: I have received financial support from several companies involved in producing instruments for sinus surgery: Acclarent, Sinusys, Cryolife and Medtronic.

Carl Philpott: I have previously received consultancy fees from the companies Acclarent, Navigant, Aerin Medical and Entellus.

Anne GM Schilder: Professor Anne Schilder is joint Co‐ordinating Editor of the Cochrane ENT Group, but had no role in the editorial process for this review. Her evidENT team at UCL is supported by her NIHR Research Professorship award with the remit to develop a UK infrastructure and programme of clinical research in ENT, Hearing and Balance. Her institution has received a grant from GSK for a study on the microbiology of acute tympanostomy tube otorrhoea.

Martin J Burton: Professor Martin Burton is joint Co‐ordinating Editor of the Cochrane ENT Group, but had no role in the editorial process for this review.

Acknowledgements

This project is one of a suite of reviews on the medical treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (award reference 14/174/03).

This project was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure, Cochrane Programme Grant or Cochrane Incentive funding to Cochrane ENT. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

We would like to express our thanks to the external peer reviewer, Professor Wytske Fokkens, the consumer referee Joan Blakley and the Cochrane ENT editors for their detailed and insightful comments, which helped to strengthen this review. Thank you also to acting Co‐ordinating Editor, Professor Richard Harvey, for his oversight of this publication.

The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Jenny Bellorini and Samantha Faulkner, with editorial support and searching for studies.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 Apr 26

Short‐course oral steroids as an adjunct therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

Review

Karen Head, Lee Yee Chong, Claire Hopkins, Carl Philpott, Anne GM Schilder, Martin J Burton

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011992.pub2

2015 Dec 18

Short‐course oral steroids as an adjunct therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis

Protocol

Lee Yee Chong, Karen Head, Claire Hopkins, Carl Philpott, Martin J Burton

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011992

Differences between protocol and review

As part of the discussions about the use of a total symptom score we noted that many papers within the suite of reviews did not present information for all four elements of the EPOS criteria for defining chronic rhinosinusitis (EPOS 2012). In particular, many studies that only included patients with nasal polyps did not present information on facial pressure or pain. We made the decision that where individual symptoms were recorded, they should be presented within the outcome of disease severity symptom score within the paper as this information would be useful for the reader.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Process for sifting search results and selecting studies for inclusion.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Process for sifting search results and selecting studies for inclusion.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comparison 1 Oral corticosteroids versus no treatment (intranasal steroids in both groups), Outcome 1 Nasal polyp grading.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Oral corticosteroids versus no treatment (intranasal steroids in both groups), Outcome 1 Nasal polyp grading.

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 1 Total symptom score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 1 Total symptom score.

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 2 Nasal obstruction.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 2 Nasal obstruction.

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 3 Purulent nasal discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 3 Purulent nasal discharge.

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 4 Headache/facial pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 4 Headache/facial pain.

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 5 Cough.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 5 Cough.

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 6 CT score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms), Outcome 6 CT score.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Short‐course oral corticosteroids compared to no oral corticosteroid treatment (intranasal steroids in both groups) for chronic rhinosinusitis

Short‐course oral corticosteroids compared to no oral corticosteroid treatment (intranasal steroids in both arms) for chronic rhinosinusitis

Patient or population: chronic rhinosinusitis
Setting: ENT departments
Intervention: short‐course oral steroids and intranasal steroids
Comparison: intranasal steroids alone (no oral steroid treatment)

Outcomes

No. of participants

(studies)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Quality

What happens

Without oral steroids

With oral steroids

Difference

Disease‐specific health‐related quality of life

No RCT reported this outcome

Disease severity ‐ patient‐reported symptom score

No RCT reported this outcome

Adverse effect: mood or behavioural disturbances

No RCT reported this outcome

Health‐related quality of life

No RCT reported this outcome

Adverse effect: insomnia

No RCT reported this outcome

Adverse effect: gastrointestinal disturbances ‐ not measured

No RCT reported this outcome

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval;RCT: randomised controlled trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Short‐course oral corticosteroids compared to no oral corticosteroid treatment (intranasal steroids in both groups) for chronic rhinosinusitis
Summary of findings 2. Short‐course oral corticosteroids compared to placebo (antibiotics in both arms) for chronic rhinosinusitis

Short‐course oral corticosteroids compared to placebo (antibiotics in both groups) for chronic rhinosinusitis

Patient or population: chronic rhinosinusitis
Setting: paediatric allergy and ENT department
Intervention: oral corticosteroids and antibiotics
Comparison: placebo and antibiotics

Outcomes

No of participants (studies)

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Quality

What happens

Without oral steroids

With oral steroids

Difference

Disease‐specific health‐related quality of life

No RCT reported this outcome

Disease severity ‐ patient‐reported symptom score, assessed with: 4 individual symptoms measured on 0 to 10 visual analogue scale summed to provide a range of 0 to 40
Follow‐up: 30 days 2

No. of participants: 45
(1 RCT)

The mean disease severity score without oral steroids was 15.2

The mean disease severity score with oral steroids was 3.6

The mean disease severity score in the intervention group was 7.10 lower (9.59 lower to 4.61 lower)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

A lower score indicates less severe symptoms. The results relate to a standardised mean difference of 1.61 standard deviations lower (‐2.29 to 0.93 lower), corresponding to a large difference.

Adverse effect: mood or behavioural disturbances

No RCT reported this outcome

Health‐related quality of life

No RCT reported this outcome

Adverse effect: insomnia

No RCT reported this outcome

Adverse effect: gastrointestinal disturbances

No RCT reported this outcome

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study completed only in children (mean age 8 years old). Study follow‐up time was less than 3 months (1 month). Scales were not validated and were completed by "parents and children".

2Symptoms included in this score were: purulent nasal discharge, nasal obstruction, cough and facial pain/headache.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Short‐course oral corticosteroids compared to placebo (antibiotics in both arms) for chronic rhinosinusitis
Table 1. Summary of the most commonly reported side effects of systemic steroids

System

Adverse events

Notes

Musculoskeletal

Osteoporosis

Largely limited to long‐term use

Significantly increased risk of fractures with prolonged use

Osteonecrosis

Rare; appears to be dose‐dependent

Endocrine

Hyperglycaemia

Common; dose‐dependent, usually reversible

Cardiovascular

Hypertension

Common; dose‐dependent, usually reversible

Dermatological

Striae, bruising

Dose‐dependent, occurs after > 1 month usage

Ophthalmological

Cataracts

Irreversible; largely related to long‐term usage

Glaucoma

High risk with pre‐existing disease

Gastrointestinal tract

Peptic ulceration

Increased risk largely due to concomitant NSAIDs

Psychological

Psychosis

Common; increased risk with dosages > 40 mg/day

References: Da Silva 2006; Naber 1996; Stanbury 1998

NSAIDs: non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary of the most commonly reported side effects of systemic steroids
Comparison 1. Oral corticosteroids versus no treatment (intranasal steroids in both groups)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Nasal polyp grading Show forest plot

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐0.87, ‐0.05]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Oral corticosteroids versus no treatment (intranasal steroids in both groups)
Comparison 2. Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Total symptom score Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐7.10 [‐9.59, ‐4.61]

2 Nasal obstruction Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.50 [‐4.71, ‐2.29]

3 Purulent nasal discharge Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.54, 1.14]

4 Headache/facial pain Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.3 [‐2.55, ‐0.05]

5 Cough Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐3.35, ‐0.85]

6 CT score Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.90 [‐4.91, ‐0.89]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Oral corticosteroids versus placebo (antibiotics in both arms)