Objective
This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing sinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses. Sinusitis affects 1 in 7 adults in the United States, resulting in about 31 million individuals diagnosed each year. Since sinusitis almost always involves the nasal cavity, the term rhinosinusitis is preferred. The guideline target patient is aged 18 years or older with uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, evaluated in any setting in which an adult with rhinosinusitis would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage adults with sinusitis.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of ancillary tests that include nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of allergy, emergency medicine, family medicine, health insurance, immunology, infectious disease, internal medicine, medical informatics, nursing, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pulmonology, and radiology.
Results
The panel made strong recommendations that 1) clinicians should distinguish presumed acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) from acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions, and a clinician should diagnose ABRS when (a) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis are present 10 days or more beyond the onset of upper respiratory symptoms, or (b) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis worsen within 10 days after an initial improvement (double worsening), and 2) the management of ABRS should include an assessment of pain, with analgesic treatment based on the severity of pain.

The panel made a recommendation against radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for acute rhinosinusitis, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected.

The panel made recommendations that 1) if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic agent, the clinician should prescribe amoxicillin as first-line therapy for most adults, 2) if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days, the clinician should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications, 3) clinicians should distinguish chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms, 4) clinicians should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis for factors that modify management, such as allergic rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, ciliary dyskinesia, and anatomic variation, 5) the clinician should corroborate a diagnosis and/or investigate for underlying causes of CRS and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, 6) the clinician should obtain computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 7) clinicians should educate/counsel patients with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis regarding control measures.

The panel offered as options that 1) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing viral rhinosinusitis, 2) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing ABRS, 3) observation without use of antibiotics is an option for selected adults with uncomplicated ABRS who have mild illness (mild pain and temperature <38.3°C or 101°F) and assurance of follow-up, 4) the clinician may obtain nasal endoscopy in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 5) the clinician may obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis.
Disclaimer
This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance for managing adults with rhinosinusitis. Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

/pdf/clinical-practice-guideline-adult-sinusitis-3wk79c00tt.pdf

Clinical practice guideline: Adult sinusitis

ObjectiveThis update of a 2007 guideline from the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations to manage adult rhinosinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. Changes from the prior guideline include a consumer added to the update group, evidence from 42 new systematic reviews, enhanced information on patient education and counseling, a new algorithm to clarify action statement relationships, expanded opportunities for watchful waiting (without antibiotic therapy) as initial therapy of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), and 3 new recommendations for managing chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).PurposeThe purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing adult rhinosinusitis and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to improve diagnostic accuracy for adu...

/pdf/clinical-practice-guideline-update-adult-sinusitis-2ljjii9vlh.pdf

Clinical Practice Guideline (Update) Adult Sinusitis

Histamine has an important role as a chemical messenger in physiologic responses, neurotransmission, allergic inflammation, and immunomodulation by way of the H1-receptor. Most H1-antihistamines, which are useful in treating these effects, possess similar efficacy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria. However, there are clinically relevant differences among them in their pharmacology and safety profiles.

Advances in H1-Antihistamines

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP), representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the JTFPP, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The JTFPP understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that might appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The JTFPP recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication might vary, for example, depending on third-party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, because a given test or agent's cost is so widely variable and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the JTFPP generally does not consider cost when formulating practice parameter recommendations. In extraordinary circumstances, when the cost/benefit ratio of an intervention is prohibitive, as supported by pharmacoeconomic data, commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The JTFPP is committed to ensuring that the practice parameters are based on the best scientific evidence that is free of commercial bias. To this end, the parameter development process includes multiple layers of rigorous review. These layers include the workgroup convened to draft the parameter, the task force reviewers, and peer review by members of each sponsoring society. Although the task force has the final responsibility for the content of the documents submitted for publication, each reviewer comment will be discussed, and reviewers will receive written responses to comments, when appropriate. To preserve the greatest transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, all members of the JTFPP and the practice parameter workgroups will complete a standard potential conflict of interest disclosure form, which will be available for external review by the sponsoring organization and any other interested individual. In addition, before confirming the selection of a Work Group chairperson, the Joint Task Force will discuss and resolve all relevant potential conflicts of interest associated with this selection. Finally, all members of parameter workgroups will be provided a written statement regarding the importance of ensuring that the parameter development process is free of commercial bias. Practice parameters are available online at www.jcaai.org and www.allergyparameters.org.

/pdf/the-diagnosis-and-management-of-acute-and-chronic-urticaria-46ajlm7qkp.pdf

The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update.

Since the cloning of the histamine H(3) receptor cDNA in 1999 by Lovenberg and co-workers, this histamine receptor has gained the interest of many pharmaceutical companies as a potential drug target for the treatment of various important disorders, including obesity, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, as well as for myocardial ischaemia, migraine and inflammatory diseases. Here, we discuss relevant information on this target protein and describe the development of various H(3) receptor agonists and antagonists, and their effects in preclinical animal models.

/pdf/the-histamine-h3-receptor-from-gene-cloning-to-h3-receptor-2mu9sseg6e.pdf

The histamine H3 receptor: from gene cloning to H3 receptor drugs

An extensive body of research exists on CNS effects of H1-antagonists. There is great interest in this area due to the well-known adverse CNS effects associated with first-generation H1-antagonists, and the many new second-generation agents claiming to have nonsedative properties. Because the CNS effects of H1-antagonists are complex and cannot be reflected in one measurement, a variety of assessments of CNS function are required. These range from the subjective (e.g., self-rating of drowsiness) to the objective (e.g. 24 h EEG sleep latency, P300), and from the simple (e.g., critical flicker fusion) to the complex (e.g., actual driving). When these tests are applied to the evaluation of the H1-antagonists currently available, it is clear that there is a real distinction between the older first-generation H1-antagonists and the newer second-generation ones. At the recommended dosages, all the second-generation H1-antagonists are clearly less sedating in more patients than their predecessors. These newer medications do not cross the blood-brain barrier readily; are highly specific for H1-receptors; have little to no anticholinergic, antiserotoninergic, or anti-alpha-adrenergic effects; and do not enhance the adverse CNS effects of alcohol or other CNS-active substances such as the benzodiazepines. Since most second-generation H1-antagonists are found to be relatively nonsedating, their benefit/risk ratios will be determined more by their other properties such as non-CNS adverse effects (e.g., potential to cause cardiac arrhythmias), potency, onset of action, duration of action, ease of administration, and cost. The future role and usefulness of the older sedating H1-antagonists, given the availability of the safer second-generation agents, are unclear at the present time. When H1-antagonist treatment is indicated, physicians should recommend an effective H1-antagonist with a favorable clinical pharmacology profile and a wide margin of safety in patients of all ages. The common, often subclinical, adverse CNS effects produced by the old H1-antagonists remain a major concern and, therefore, these compounds are no longer medications of choice in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, or urticaria.

Simons Fe

Papers

H1-antihistamines and the central nervous system.