BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IT) has been well established as an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but little is known about the benefits of IT on clinical outcomes of comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The goal of this publication is to systematically review the literature regarding outcomes of IT in patients with atopic CRS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted including studies that assessed the efficacy of IT on clinical outcome measures in CRS including without polyp, with polyp, and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis subgroups. Excluded articles were those only reporting outcomes specific to asthma or AR. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review, none of which were randomized controlled trials. Generally, symptom scores improved in patients treated with IT when compared with baseline data and control patients. Objective endoscopic exam measures improved with IT treatment in short-term studies. Significant improvements were observed in radiographic assessments, and there was a decreased necessity for revision surgery, interventional office visits, and intranasal and oral steroid use. CONCLUSION: Conclusions are limited by the paucity of available data on the efficacy of IT for treating CRS-specific outcome measures. There is weak evidence to support the use of IT as an adjunctive treatment in CRS patients, particularly in the postoperative period.
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IT) has been well established as an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but little is known about the benefits of IT on clinical outcomes of comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The goal of this publication is to systematically review the literature regarding outcomes of IT in patients with atopic CRS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted including studies that assessed the efficacy of IT on clinical outcome measures in CRS including without polyp, with polyp, and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis subgroups. Excluded articles were those only reporting outcomes specific to asthma or AR. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review, none of which were randomized controlled trials. Generally, symptom scores improved in patients treated with IT when compared with baseline data and control patients. Objective endoscopic exam measures improved with IT treatment in short-term studies. Significant improvements were observed in radiographic assessments, and there was a decreased necessity for revision surgery, interventional office visits, and intranasal and oral steroid use. CONCLUSION: Conclusions are limited by the paucity of available data on the efficacy of IT for treating CRS-specific outcome measures. There is weak evidence to support the use of IT as an adjunctive treatment in CRS patients, particularly in the postoperative period.
Authors: Elena Cantone; Stefania Gallo; Sara Torretta; Aikaterini Detoraki; Carlo Cavaliere; Claudio Di Nola; Luca Spirito; Tiziana Di Cesare; Stefano Settimi; Daniela Furno; Lorenzo Pignataro; Eugenio De Corso Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-09