xRead - Nasal Obstruction (September 2024) Full Articles

20426984, 2021, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.22741 by Stanford University, Wiley Online Library on [01/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

534

International consensus statement on rhinosinusitis

83% had improved symptoms and

endoscopy (7/9 with AFRS); 3/19 who

3. Nonallergic fungal eosinophilic RS (n = 13) responded had to stop due to elevated liver enzymes Chan 1738 2008 4 Case series AFRS (n = 32) patients

75% had stabilization or decrease in mucosal

edema and symptoms.

Symptoms 1 of 3 patients receiving only oral antifungals

reported improvement in symptoms

Gan 1736 2014 3 SR of level 3 and 4 studies AFRS patients N/A With quality of evidence rated as C, oral antifungals recommended as

option in postsurgical refractory AFRS

moderate improvement

and 44% had little or no change

Rains 1740 2003 4 Case Series AFRS (n = 137) Recurrence 50.4% recurrence and reoperation in 20.5%

Study Year LOE Study Design Study Groups Clinical Endpoint Conclusions

who had failed other medical therapies RSOM-31 56% had significant or

RS symptoms; Endoscopy

Nasal endoscopy Symptoms

3. Oral corticosteroids and oral antifungals (n = 2)

1. No treatment (n = 9)

Seiberling 1737 2009 4 Case Series Polyp recurrence treated with itraconazole: 1.AFRS (n = 9) 2. AFRS-like (n = 1)

with fluconazole spray (n = 16)

2. Oral corticosteroids (n = 100)

4. Oral antifungals only (n = 3)

Jen 1739 2004 4 Pilot study Patients with “a history of AFRS” with progression of symptoms treated

Kupferberg 1741 1997 4 Case Series Postoperative AFRS patients receiving:

TABLE X-31 (Continued)