Accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: minimizing bacterial resistance

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance in respiratory pathogens has become a common clinical problem that has serious public health implications. Inappropriate use of antibiotics for the treatment of viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) has contributed to the development of resistant microorganisms. Health care providers can help control the spread of resistance by limiting the use of antimicrobial agents to infections that meet clinical guidelines for a bacterial cause. OBJECTIVE: This article examines the means of accurately diagnosing and appropriately treating acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) in an effort to control increasing levels of resistance. METHODS: This article discusses current treatment guidelines that provide the evidenced-based rationale for choosing the most appropriate antimicrobial agents for suspected ABRS in adults and children. An evidence-based approach can help minimize the public health threat posed by the continuing increase in microbial resistance. RESULTS: Although definitive clinical criteria that differentiate between ABRS and viral URTI are lacking, careful evaluation of the duration and severity of symptoms provides a rational basis for diagnosing ABRS in primary care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Once a diagnosis of ABRS has been made, empiric antibiotic therapy may be justified. When it is, the first-line agent should be the narrowest spectrum antibiotic that would be expected to eradicate the most common causative organisms. The antibiotic selection process should take into account prevailing patterns of resistance and the presence of risk factors for infection with resistant pathogens, as well as published evidence-based guidelines.     

Canadian guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: Clinical summary

Objective

To provide a clinical summary of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) that includes relevant considerations for family physicians.

Quality of evidence

Guideline authors performed a systematic literature search and drafted recommendations. Recommendations received both strength of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings. Input from external content experts was sought, as was endorsement from Canadian medical societies (Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada, Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Canadian Society of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, and the Family Physicians Airways Group of Canada).

Main message

Diagnosis of ABRS is based on the presence of specific symptoms and their duration; imaging or culture are not needed in uncomplicated cases. Treatment is dependent on symptom severity, with intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) recommended as monotherapy for mild and moderate cases, although the benefit might be modest. Use of INCSs plus antibiotics is reserved for patients who fail to respond to INCSs after 72 hours, and for initial treatment of patients with severe symptoms. Antibiotic selection must account for the suspected pathogen, the risk of resistance, comorbid conditions, and local antimicrobial resistance trends. Adjunct therapies such as nasal saline irrigation are recommended. Failure to respond to treatment, recurrent episodes, and signs of complications should prompt referral to an otolaryngologist. The guidelines address situations unique to the Canadian health care environment, including actions to take during prolonged wait periods for specialist referral or imaging.

Conclusion

The Canadian guidelines provide up-to-date recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of ABRS that reflect an evolving understanding of the disease. In addition, the guidelines offer useful tools to help clinicians discern viral from bacterial episodes, as well as optimally manage their patients with ABRS.Rhinosinusitis is a common malady, afflicting approximately 1 in 8 adults. The incidence of acute rhinosinusitis among American adults rose from 11% (26 million) in 2007¹ to 13% (29.8 million) in 2010.² Applying the more recent prevalence rate to the Canada population results in an estimated 3.5 million adults with acute rhinosinusitis annually.³Sinus symptoms are a common complaint among patients seeking medical attention. However, up to two-thirds of patients with sinus symptoms have viral disease rather than bacterial infection.⁴ Although antibiotics were once routinely prescribed on the suspicion of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), treatment emphasis has shifted as antimicrobial resistance rates have increased. In 2011, Canadian clinical practice guidelines were published for ABRS and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS)^5,6 to address the evolving state of diagnosis and treatment while addressing aspects unique to the Canadian health care system (eg, prolonged wait times for medical procedures and specialist referral⁷).     

Management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: current issues and future perspectives

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), which manifests as an inflammation of at least one of the paranasal sinuses, is a major public health issue in developed countries. Diagnosis and treatment of ABRS can pose significant challenges in clinical practice, including difficulty in differentiation between viral and bacterial infection and a lack of simple, reliable and convenient methods for definitive diagnosis. Treatment choice is also a challenge because a decision is typically made empirically; therefore, the selection of therapy should be based on knowledge of local patterns of antimicrobial resistance, spectrum of activity against the most common ABRS pathogens (including those that are resistant to penicillins and macrolides) and pharmacodynamic potency. Current guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of ABRS in various countries share some similarities but also have important differences. Criteria for making the clinical diagnosis of sinusitis vary only slightly from country to country, while recommendations of therapy reflect the local impact of bacterial resistance.     

Balloon sinuplasty: a minimally invasive option for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

Rhinosinusitis affects ~37 million people in the United States and accounts for almost 2% of all primary care office visits. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is often successfully managed in the primary care setting using antibiotics, topical or oral steroids, and saline nasal irrigation. Surgery is an option when medical management fails. Balloon sinuplasty is a minimally invasive endoscopic treatment, which is often used in combination with surgery. It aims to restore ostial patency with minimal mucosal damage, and it is indicated for dilatation of the paranasal sinuses for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The technology gently displaces, microfractures, and molds the bone surrounding the sinus outflow and may be used alone or in combination with conventional endoscopic surgery. Recent uncontrolled retrospective and prospective studies have reported the effectiveness and safety of balloon sinuplasty, including radiographic evidence of sinus patency and improved sinus-related quality of life scores for up to 2 years after balloon dilation. An examination of adverse events during a postmarketing assessment of balloon sinuplasty identified a total of 3 major complications among 28 500 patients, with a total of > 85 000 treated sinuses. While randomized controlled trials comparing balloon sinuplasty with conventional functional endoscopic sinus surgery have not been conducted, existing prospective and retrospective assessments suggest that balloon sinuplasty is a viable option for sinus intervention, either alone or in combination with conventional surgical treatment.     

Clinical diagnosis of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, typical of experts

Background  Clinical diagnosis of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) is a concern when a patient presents with nasal discharge of recent onset together with facial pain or pressure. Given this presentation, the doctor would benefit from having access to software that specifies, first, what diagnostic indicators experts typically use in that diagnosis and then, upon entry of those facts, what experts' typical probability of ABS is in such a case.
Methods  We specified a set of 23 hypothetical presentations of this type by patients 20–75 years of age, involving a comprehensive set of clinical-diagnostic indicators. Members of an international expert panel independently set the probability of ABS in each of these cases. A logistic function of the diagnostic indicators was fitted to the medians of the probabilities.
Results  The fitting led to an expression of the experts' median probability of ABS as a joint function of the duration of the patient's facial pain/pressure, and indicators of the location(s) of this; indicators of exacerbation of the pain/pressure on bending forward, nasal obstruction, maxillary and/or frontal tenderness, pus from middle meatus, purulent postnasal drip, and fever; and indicators of recent upper respiratory tract infection, nasal polyposis and status post sinus surgery. This probability function is accessible at http://www.evimed.ch/ABS .
Interpretation  That probability function, made readily accessible, provides for expertly probability setting in clinical diagnosis of ABS, relevant for decisions about further diagnostics or treatment without further tests.     

Avelox efficacy in the treatment of acute purulent rhinosinusitis

AIM: To compare efficacy of avelox systemic antibiotic therapy with and without maxillary puncture in acute purulent rhinosinusitis (ARS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 40 ARS patients were divided into two groups: puncture was not made in 20 patients of the study group and was made in 20 patients of the control group. Subjective assessment of rhinosinusitis symptoms was made by visual scale Kennedy-Lund, objective assessment was made by x-ray or CT findings. RESULTS: A clinical response was observed in all 40 patients. Complications or side effects associated with avelox administration were not registered. Regress of rhinosinusitis symptoms did not significantly differ between the controls and test patients. The roentgenographic picture did not differ significantly, CT showed that the response came faster without puncture. CONCLUSION: Systemic antibiotic therapy of uncomplicated purulent rhinosinusitis with avelox is not inferior by efficacy to the standard puncture treatment.     

An approach to the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis

The management of patients presenting with nasal congestion, rhinorrhea and facial pressure poses a challenge due to the nonspecific nature of these symptoms. A systematic approach to diagnosing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is essential prior to offering therapies. This review offers an overview of current definitions, diagnostic algorithms and medical therapies available for the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Antimicrobial use for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is substantial and carries a major impact on regional resistance patterns.     

An approach to the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis

The management of patients presenting with nasal congestion, rhinorrhea and facial pressure poses a challenge due to the nonspecific nature of these symptoms. A systematic approach to diagnosing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is essential prior to offering therapies. This review offers an overview of current definitions, diagnostic algorithms and medical therapies available for the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Antimicrobial use for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is substantial and carries a major impact on regional resistance patterns.     

Cefdinir versus levofloxacin in patients with acute rhinosinusitis of presumed bacterial etiology: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) recommend 10 to 14 days of therapy with high-dose amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, cefuroxime, a macrolide, or a newer fluoroquinolone, among other agents. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical efficacy and tolerability of cefdinir and levofloxacin in patients with a diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis of presumed bacterial origin. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority study, ambulatory adult patients who had signs and symptoms for >7 to 21 days before the screening visit and radiographic findings consistent with acute rhinosinusitis were randomized to receive cefdinir 600 mg or levofloxacin 500 mg, each once daily for 10 days. Clinical and radiologic response rates were determined at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit, which took place 9 to 14 days after the completion of treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-one patients (138 cefdinir, 133 levofloxacin) were enrolled and randomized to treatment at 27 study centers in the United States and Poland between November 2003 and March 2004. Of these, 241 (123 cefdinir, 118 levofloxacin) were clinically evaluable. The cefdinir group consisted of 75 women and 48 men, of whom 117 were white and 6 black; their mean (SD) age was 42.5 (14.3) years. The levofloxacin group consisted of 71 women and 47 men, of whom 111 were white and 7 black; their mean age was 40.4 (13.6) years. The 2 groups were similar in terms of presenting signs and symptoms and baseline radiographic findings. The most common presenting symptoms were sinus pain, sinus pressure, and purulent nasal discharge, each of which was reported by > or =89% of patients. Clinical cure rates at the TOC visit in the cefdinir and levofloxacin groups were 83% (102/123) and 86% (101/118), respectively (95% Cl for the difference in cure rates, -12.3 to 7.0). Cefdinir and levofloxacin were comparable in the treatment of infections classified as moderate to severe. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was generally comparable in the 2 treatment groups, although there were significant differences between cefdinir and levofloxacin in the incidence of vaginal moniliasis in women (11% vs 0%, respectively; P = 0.003), drug-related diarrhea (8% vs 1%; P = 0.005), and insomnia (0% vs 4%; P = 0.027). Only 2% of patients discontinued therapy prematurely as a result of a drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: In this population of patients with ABRS, the extended-spectrum cephalosporin cefdinir was as efficacious as the fluoroquinolone levofloxacin, suggesting that cefdinir may be a suitable alternative to the currently recommended fluoroquinolones.     

Faropenem: review of a new oral penem

Faropenem medoxomil is a new orally administered penem antibiotic. Its chiral tetrahydrofuran substituent at position C2 is responsible for its improved chemical stability and reduced CNS effects, compared with imipenem. Faropenem demonstrates broad-spectrum in vitro antimicrobial activity against many Gram-positive and -negative aerobes and anaerobes, and is resistant to hydrolysis by nearly all β-lactamases, including extended-spectrum β-lactamases and AmpC β-lactamases. However, faropenem is not active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative (not vs placebo) clinical trials of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS), acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (uSSSIs) have demonstrated that faropenem medoxomil has equivalent efficacy and safety compared with cefuroxime, clarithromycin, azithromycin, amoxicillin, cefpodoxime and amoxicillin–clavulanate. The evidence supports faropenem medoxomil as a promising new oral β-lactam with proven efficacy and safety for the treatment of a variety of community-acquired infections. However, the US FDA recently rejected faropenem for all four indications stating that the clinical trials in ABS and AECB should have been performed versus a placebo. In the CAP studies, the FDA stated that they could not be certain of the validity of the study population actually having the disease and for uSSSI, the FDA stated that only a single trial was not adequate evidence of efficacy for this indication.     

Faropenem: review of a new oral penem

Faropenem medoxomil is a new orally administered penem antibiotic. Its chiral tetrahydrofuran substituent at position C2 is responsible for its improved chemical stability and reduced CNS effects, compared with imipenem. Faropenem demonstrates broad-spectrum in vitro antimicrobial activity against many Gram-positive and -negative aerobes and anaerobes, and is resistant to hydrolysis by nearly all beta-lactamases, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamases and AmpC beta-lactamases. However, faropenem is not active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative (not vs placebo) clinical trials of acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS), acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (uSSSIs) have demonstrated that faropenem medoxomil has equivalent efficacy and safety compared with cefuroxime, clarithromycin, azithromycin, amoxicillin, cefpodoxime and amoxicillin-clavulanate. The evidence supports faropenem medoxomil as a promising new oral beta-lactam with proven efficacy and safety for the treatment of a variety of community-acquired infections. However, the US FDA recently rejected faropenem for all four indications stating that the clinical trials in ABS and AECB should have been performed versus a placebo. In the CAP studies, the FDA stated that they could not be certain of the validity of the study population actually having the disease and for uSSSI, the FDA stated that only a single trial was not adequate evidence of efficacy for this indication.     

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults: part II. Treatment

Although most cases of acute rhinosinusitis are caused by viruses, acute bacterial rhinosinusitis is a fairly common complication. Even though most patients with acute rhinosinusitis recover promptly without it, antibiotic therapy should be considered in patients with prolonged or more severe symptoms. To avoid the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, narrow-spectrum antibiotics such as amoxicillin should be used for 10 to 14 days. In patients with mild disease who have beta-lactam allergy, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or doxycycline are options. Second-line antibiotics should be considered if the patient has moderate disease, recent antibiotic use (past six weeks), or no response to treatment within 72 hours. Amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium and fluoroquinolones have the best coverage for Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. In patients with beta-lactam hypersensitivity who have moderate disease, a fluoroquinolone should be prescribed. The evidence supporting the use of ancillary treatments is limited. Decongestants often are recommended, and there is some evidence to support their use, although topical decongestants should not be used for more than three days to avoid rebound congestion. Topical ipratropium and the sedating antihistamines have anticholinergic effects that maybe beneficial, but there are no clinical studies supporting this possibility. Nasal irrigation with hypertonic and normal saline has been beneficial in chronic sinusitis and has no serious adverse effects. Nasal corticosteroids also may be beneficial in treating chronic sinusitis. Mist, zinc salt lozenges, echinacea extract, and vitamin C have no proven benefit in the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.     

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults: part I. Evaluation

Acute rhinosinusitis is one of the most common conditions that physicians treat in ambulatory practice. Although often caused by viruses, it sometimes is caused by bacteria, a condition that is called acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. The signs and symptoms of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and prolonged viral upper respiratory infection are similar, which makes accurate clinical diagnosis difficult. Because two thirds of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis improve without antibiotic treatment and most patients with viral upper respiratory infection improve within seven d antibiotic therapy should be reserved for use in patients who have had symptoms for more than seven days and meet clinical criteria. Four signs and symptoms are the most helpful in predicting acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: purulent nasal discharge, maxillary tooth or facial pain (especially unilateral), unilateral maxillary sinus tenderness, and worsening symptoms after initial improvement. Sinus radiography and ultrasonography are not recommended in the diagnosis of uncomplicated acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, although computed tomography has a role in the care of patients with recurrent or chronic symptoms.