Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Adults: Part II. Treatment



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

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 may be 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.

In this article, the evidence supporting different treatments for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is reviewed. In part one1 of this two-part article, clinical criteria for evaluating ABRS are described.

Strength of Recommendations

Key clinical recommendation Label References

Amoxicillin for 10 to 14 days is a reasonable first-line agent.

A

4,5,10

In patients with mild disease who have beta-lactam hypersensitivity, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Septra) or doxycycline (Vibramycin) are reasonable, cost-effective, first-line options.

A

16

In patients with moderate disease, recent antibiotic use, or lack of treatment response within 72 hours, amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium (Augmentin) or a fluoroquinolone should be prescribed.

C

16

Ancillary treatments such as decongestants, topical anticholinergics, guaifenesin (Hytuss), saline nasal irrigation, and nasal corticosteroids may be beneficial.

C

27,28,31,336,38,39,44,45

Mist, zinc salt lozenges, echinacea, and vitamin C have no proven benefit.

A

46,47

Patients with complications or treatment failure after extended antibiotic therapy should be referred to an otolaryngologist. Patients with frequent recurrences of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis should be referred to an allergist for consideration of immunotherapy.

C

6,48

Strength of Recommendations

View Table

Strength of Recommendations

Key clinical recommendation Label References

Amoxicillin for 10 to 14 days is a reasonable first-line agent.

A

4,5,10

In patients with mild disease who have beta-lactam hypersensitivity, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Septra) or doxycycline (Vibramycin) are reasonable, cost-effective, first-line options.

A

16

In patients with moderate disease, recent antibiotic use, or lack of treatment response within 72 hours, amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium (Augmentin) or a fluoroquinolone should be prescribed.

C

16

Ancillary treatments such as decongestants, topical anticholinergics, guaifenesin (Hytuss), saline nasal irrigation, and nasal corticosteroids may be beneficial.

C

27,28,31,336,38,39,44,45

Mist, zinc salt lozenges, echinacea, and vitamin C have no proven benefit.

A

46,47

Patients with complications or treatment failure after extended antibiotic therapy should be referred to an otolaryngologist. Patients with frequent recurrences of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis should be referred to an allergist for consideration of immunotherapy.

C

6,48

Antibiotics

About two thirds of patients with ABRS improve without antibiotic treatment, and most patients with viral upper respiratory infection (URI) improve within seven days.2 Antibiotic therapy should be reserved for patients who have had symptoms for more than seven days and who present with two or more clinical criteria for ABRS (purulent nasal discharge, maxillary tooth or facial pain [especially unilateral], unilateral maxillary sinus tenderness, or worsening symptoms after initial improvement), or for those with severe symptoms3(Figure 1).

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Immunocompetent Adults

Figure 1

Algorithm for diagnosis and management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in immunocompetent adults.

View Large

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Immunocompetent Adults


Figure 1

Algorithm for diagnosis and management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in immunocompetent adults.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Immunocompetent Adults


Figure 1

Algorithm for diagnosis and management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in immunocompetent adults.

RESULTS OF CLINICAL TRIALS

There have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotic treatment for ABRS using sinus aspirate cultures before and after treatment, although nonrandomized trials have demonstrated bacteriologic cures. Five RCTs and two meta-analyses have compared antibiotics, usually amoxicillin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; Bactrim, Septra), with placebo, with clinical improvement as the outcome, which is the more clinically relevant patient-oriented outcome.4,5 About 47 percent of patients treated with antibiotics and 32 percent of the control group were cured at 10 to 14 days. Eighty-one percent of patients treated with antibiotics and 66 percent of the control group were cured or improved, meaning one patient benefited for every seven treated with antibiotics. The treatment effect in these trials may have been underestimated because the lack of specificity of diagnosis diluted the effect of treatment.

Amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium (Augmentin), cephalosporins (cefuroxime [Ceftin] and cefixime [Suprax]), and macrolides (azithromycin [Zithromax] and clarithromycin [Biaxin]), have been studied extensively.6,7 All have demonstrated similar clinical success rates—generally above 85 percent. The use of fluoroquinolones for ABRS is relatively new. Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) and cefuroxime had 90 percent resolution rates when administered to patients in a primary care setting.8 In an open-label RCT, levofloxacin (Levaquin) and clarithromycin had 96 and 93 percent clinical success rates, respectively.9

Four meta-analyses published within the past seven years concluded that newer broad-spectrum antibiotics are no more effective than narrow-spectrum antibiotics.4,5,10,11 In most of these studies, amoxicillin was compared with a cephalosporin, a fluoroquinolone, or a macrolide. The rapid emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms associated with ABRS has made choosing an antibiotic more difficult. Surveillance studies have shown an increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.12,13 Up to 25 percent of these bacteria are penicillin resistant, and 15 percent are penicillin intermediate. Resistance to macrolides, doxycycline (Vibramycin), and TMP-SMX is common.12 The prevalence of beta-lactamase–producing Haemophilus influenzae is about 30 percent, and resistance to TMP-SMX is common.12 Nearly all Mycobacterium catarrhalis isolates produce beta-lactamase.

SELECTING AN ANTIBIOTIC

To integrate current antibiotic resistance surveillance data into antibiotic recommendations, the Sinus and Allergy Health Partnership (SAHP) used the Poole Therapeutic Outcomes Model, a mathematical model that predicts clinical efficacy for each of the antibiotics commonly prescribed for ABRS (Table 1).1316 The model incorporates assumptions about the probability of bacterial infection, pathogen distribution, spontaneous resolution rates, and in vitro activity of antibiotics.15

TABLE 1

Oral Antibiotics Used in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Antibiotic Dosage/frequency Calculated clinical efficacy (%)* Cost

Mild disease and no recent antibiotic use

Amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium (Augmentin)‡

500 mg every 8 hours, 875 mg every 12 hours§

91

$83.96 to 112.08

High dose (Augmentin XR)

2,000 mg every 12 hours§

112.08

Amoxicillin (Amoxil)

500 mg every 8 hours, 875 mg every 12 hours

88

7.35 to 8.77 (8.25)

High dose

1,000 mg every 8 hours

14.70 to 17.54 (16.50)

Cefpodoxime (Vantin)‡

200 mg every 12 hours

87

118.48

Cefuroxime (Ceftin)‡

250 mg or 500 mg every 12 hours

85

108.53, 197.75

Cefdinir (Omnicef)‡

300 mg every 24 hours

83

44.66

If beta-lactam allergic:

TMP-SMX DS (Bactrim DS, Septra)

160 to 800 mg every 12 hours

83

6.64 to 27.76 (38.85)

Doxycycline (Vibramycin)

100 mg every 12 hours

81

5.00 to 27.36 (97.13)

Azithromycin (Zithromax)

500 mg on day 1, 250 mg on days 2 through 5

77

47.44

Clarithromycin (Biaxin)

250 mg or 500 mg every 12 hours

77

90.22, 90.22

Telithromycin (Ketek)

800 mg every 24 hours

77

Moderate disease or recent antibiotic use

Gatifloxacin (Tequin)

400 mg every 24 hours

92

95.68

Levofloxacin (Levaquin)

500 mg every 24 hours

92

101.47

Moxifloxacin (Avelox)

400 mg every 24 hours

92

101.92

Amoxicillin-clavulanate (high dose)

2,000 mg every 12 hours§

91

112.09

Ceftriaxone (Rocephin)

1 g every 24 hours

91

255.80∥

Combination therapy¶

If beta-lactam allergic:

Gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin

As above

As above

As above

Clindamycin (Cleocin) plus rifampin (Rifadin)**

150 to 450 mg every 6 hours, 300 mg every 12 hours

76.49 to 183.19 (154.21 to 370.38)


TMP-SMX = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

*— Clinical efficacy based on calculation from the Poole Therapeutic Outcomes Model.15

†—Estimated cost to the pharmacist based on average wholesale prices in Red book. Montvale, N.J.: Medical Economics Data, 2004. Cost to the patient will be higher, depending on prescription filling fee. Cost is for 10 days of therapy, unless stated otherwise.

‡—Any benefit of these agents as initial therapy must be balanced against their much higher cost and concerns about increasing antibiotic resistance.

§—Based on amoxicillin component.

∥—Cost is for five days of therapy, including injection fee.

¶—Combination therapies include high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus cefixime or high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus rifampin.16

**—Provides coverage for Streptococcus pneumoniae but has no activity against Haemophilus influenzae.

Information from references 13 through 16.

TABLE 1   Oral Antibiotics Used in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

View Table

TABLE 1

Oral Antibiotics Used in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Antibiotic Dosage/frequency Calculated clinical efficacy (%)* Cost

Mild disease and no recent antibiotic use

Amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium (Augmentin)‡

500 mg every 8 hours, 875 mg every 12 hours§

91

$83.96 to 112.08

High dose (Augmentin XR)

2,000 mg every 12 hours§

112.08

Amoxicillin (Amoxil)

500 mg every 8 hours, 875 mg every 12 hours

88

7.35 to 8.77 (8.25)

High dose

1,000 mg every 8 hours

14.70 to 17.54 (16.50)

Cefpodoxime (Vantin)‡

200 mg every 12 hours

87

118.48

Cefuroxime (Ceftin)‡

250 mg or 500 mg every 12 hours

85

108.53, 197.75

Cefdinir (Omnicef)‡

300 mg every 24 hours

83

44.66

If beta-lactam allergic:

TMP-SMX DS (Bactrim DS, Septra)

160 to 800 mg every 12 hours

83

6.64 to 27.76 (38.85)

Doxycycline (Vibramycin)

100 mg every 12 hours

81

5.00 to 27.36 (97.13)

Azithromycin (Zithromax)

500 mg on day 1, 250 mg on days 2 through 5

77

47.44

Clarithromycin (Biaxin)

250 mg or 500 mg every 12 hours

77

90.22, 90.22

Telithromycin (Ketek)

800 mg every 24 hours

77

Moderate disease or recent antibiotic use

Gatifloxacin (Tequin)

400 mg every 24 hours

92

95.68

Levofloxacin (Levaquin)

500 mg every 24 hours

92

101.47

Moxifloxacin (Avelox)

400 mg every 24 hours

92

101.92

Amoxicillin-clavulanate (high dose)

2,000 mg every 12 hours§

91

112.09

Ceftriaxone (Rocephin)

1 g every 24 hours

91

255.80∥

Combination therapy¶

If beta-lactam allergic:

Gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin

As above

As above

As above

Clindamycin (Cleocin) plus rifampin (Rifadin)**

150 to 450 mg every 6 hours, 300 mg every 12 hours

76.49 to 183.19 (154.21 to 370.38)


TMP-SMX = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

*— Clinical efficacy based on calculation from the Poole Therapeutic Outcomes Model.15

†—Estimated cost to the pharmacist based on average wholesale prices in Red book. Montvale, N.J.: Medical Economics Data, 2004. Cost to the patient will be higher, depending on prescription filling fee. Cost is for 10 days of therapy, unless stated otherwise.

‡—Any benefit of these agents as initial therapy must be balanced against their much higher cost and concerns about increasing antibiotic resistance.

§—Based on amoxicillin component.

∥—Cost is for five days of therapy, including injection fee.

¶—Combination therapies include high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus cefixime or high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus rifampin.16

**—Provides coverage for Streptococcus pneumoniae but has no activity against Haemophilus influenzae.

Information from references 13 through 16.

When choosing antibiotic therapy for ABRS, physicians should consider recent antibiotic use, efficacy, and cost. The SAHP guidelines classify patients with ABRS into two groups to determine initial treatment: (1) those with mild symptoms who have not received antibiotics within six weeks and (2) those who have moderately severe disease or have received antibiotics within six weeks.16 Patients with moderate disease are considered less likely to have spontaneous resolution and thus have a higher rate of treatment failure. The guidelines offer no criteria for severity. The categorization of moderate or mild severity is left to the physician’s clinical judgment, but an example was offered with earlier recommendations that emphasized the inflammatory signs of fever and tenderness.17

Although lacking complete H. influenzae coverage, amoxicillin is still a good choice for a first-line antibiotic in community-acquired ABRS because many infections with resistant organisms improve anyway,18  and because it is well tolerated and inexpensive (Table 1).1316 Higher daily doses of amoxicillin (3 to 4 g per day) may be necessary in areas with a high prevalence of penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae. TMP-SMX and doxycycline are alternatives for use in patients who are allergic to beta lactams, but they have limited coverage for H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae, and failure rates of up to 25 percent are possible.16 Erythromycin, second-generation cephalosporins with less activity against H. influenzae (e.g., cefaclor [Ceclor], cefprozil [Cefzil], loracarbef [Lorabid]), and tetracycline should not be used to treat ABRS.19

Although the cephalosporins (cefpodoxime [Vantin], cefuroxime, cefdinir [Omnicef], ceftriaxone [Rocephin]) and amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium also have been recommended for initial treatment,16 any benefit of these agents as initial therapy must be balanced against their much higher cost and concerns about increasing antibiotic resistance in the community. A retrospective cohort study of a pharmaceutical database of 29,000 adults with ABRS showed equivalent success rates with the use of older, inexpensive antibiotics at one half the cost.20 A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that even if more expensive agents were 23 percent more effective than amoxicillin, using them empirically would be cost effective only if the prevalence of true bacterial sinusitis in treated patients was greater than 80 percent.21

Second-line antibiotics should be considered when the patient has moderate disease, has used antibiotics in the past six weeks, or has no response to treatment within 72 hours. Amoxicillin-clavulanate potassium and fluoroquinolones (gatifloxacin [Tequin], levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin [Avelox]) currently have the best coverage for H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae. Other choices include intramuscular ceftriaxone or combination therapies including high-dose amoxicillin; clindamycin (Cleocin) plus cefixime; or high-dose amoxicillin or clindamycin plus rifampin (Rifadin).16 In patients with a history of beta-lactam allergies, the use of fluoroquinolones or combination therapy with clindamycin and rifampin has been recommended.16

DURATION OF TREATMENT

Most clinical trials have used 10- to 14-day courses of antibiotic therapy. Sinus puncture studies have shown eradicated pathogens in at least 95 percent of patients after a 10-day course of antibiotics.22 Results of one study showed no differences in clinical or radiographic improvement between patients receiving three- or 10-day courses of TMP-SMX.23 However, this study was conducted before 1995, and microbial resistance patterns have changed since then. More recently, five-day treatment courses with azithromycin and telithromycin (Ketek) were found to be effective.24,25

TREATMENT FAILURE

When a patient fails to respond to therapy, additional history, physical examination, cultures, or imaging may be necessary. If a change in antibiotic therapy is made, the limitations in coverage of the initial antibiotic should be considered. A switch to a fluoroquinolone is recommended after failure of amoxicillin or doxycycline.16 Combination therapy may be advantageous, particularly in patients previously treated with cefdinir or macrolides.

Ancillary Treatment

The evidence supporting the use of ancillary treatment for ABRS is relatively weak (Table 2).2648 Some studies show improvement in symptoms, but no treatments have been shown to affect the duration of illness.2628 Oral decongestants can be used until symptoms resolve. In patients with stable hypertension, decongestants have not been shown to seriously increase blood pressure.29 Decongestants should be used with caution in patients with ischemic heart disease, glaucoma, or prostatic hypertrophy.

TABLE 2

Ancillary Treatment for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Agent Dosage

Likely to be effective

Oral decongestants

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed)

60 mg every 6 hours or 120 mg every 12 hours

Topical decongestants*

Oxymetazoline (Afrin) [corrected]

2 sprays every 12 hours

Xylometazoline (Otrivin)

2 sprays every 8 hours

Phenylephrine (Neo-Synephrine) [corrected]

2 sprays every 4 hours

Possibly effective

Topical anticholinergics

Ipratropium (Atrovent) 0.06 percent

2 sprays every 6 hours

Antihistamines†

Brompheniramine (Dimetapp)

8 to 12 mg every 12 hours

Chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimeton)

8 to 12 mg every 12 hours

Diphenhydramine (Benadryl)

25 to 50 mg every 6 hours

Guaifenesin (Hytuss)†

600 mg every 12 hours

Nasal corticosteroids

Dosage varies‡

Hypertonic and normal saline nasal irrigation

Regimen varies

No proven benefit

Saline spray

Mist

Less sedating antihistamines

Zinc salt lozenges

Echinacea extract

Vitamin C


*—Although topical decongestants are effective, use must be limited to three days to avoid rebound congestion.

†—Often combined with an oral decongestant.

‡—Dosage varies by drug.

Information from references 26 through 48.

TABLE 2   Ancillary Treatment for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

View Table

TABLE 2

Ancillary Treatment for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Agent Dosage

Likely to be effective

Oral decongestants

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed)

60 mg every 6 hours or 120 mg every 12 hours

Topical decongestants*

Oxymetazoline (Afrin) [corrected]

2 sprays every 12 hours

Xylometazoline (Otrivin)

2 sprays every 8 hours

Phenylephrine (Neo-Synephrine) [corrected]

2 sprays every 4 hours

Possibly effective

Topical anticholinergics

Ipratropium (Atrovent) 0.06 percent

2 sprays every 6 hours

Antihistamines†

Brompheniramine (Dimetapp)

8 to 12 mg every 12 hours

Chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimeton)

8 to 12 mg every 12 hours

Diphenhydramine (Benadryl)

25 to 50 mg every 6 hours

Guaifenesin (Hytuss)†

600 mg every 12 hours

Nasal corticosteroids

Dosage varies‡

Hypertonic and normal saline nasal irrigation

Regimen varies

No proven benefit

Saline spray

Mist

Less sedating antihistamines

Zinc salt lozenges

Echinacea extract

Vitamin C


*—Although topical decongestants are effective, use must be limited to three days to avoid rebound congestion.

†—Often combined with an oral decongestant.

‡—Dosage varies by drug.

Information from references 26 through 48.

Although topical decongestants have been advocated in the past, their use is more controversial. Symptoms are improved in some patients, but reduced mucosal blood flow may increase inflammation.30 Topical decongestants should not be used longer than three days to avoid rebound vasodilation.

No clinical studies support the use of antihistamines for treatment of patients with ABRS. Even though histamine does not play a role in this infectious condition except, possibly, in patients who also have a predisposing allergic rhinitis, these drugs have some anti-inflammatory effects that may be beneficial.31 However, the anticholinergic effects of first-generation antihistamines could impair clearance by thickening mucus.31 Newer second-generation antihistamines have little or no anticholinergic effect and may have a role in treatment of patients with allergy and chronic sinusitis, but are not recommended for ABRS.48

The topical anticholinergic agent ipratropium bromide (Atrovent) has been used to decrease rhinorrhea in patients with the common cold,32 but there are no studies in patients with ABRS. Theoretically, ipratropium may increase the viscosity of mucus and impair its clearance, but this effect appears to be less prominent with ipratropium than with antihistamines.31

Most studies of intranasal steroids in patients with ABRS have not shown an effect on clinical outcomes. These studies often were underpowered and included patients who had chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis, as well as ABRS.3336 A recent RCT,37 limited to patients with a history of previous recurrent or chronic sinusitis, compared fluticasone (Flovent) with placebo in the treatment of patients with ABRS. Both groups received cefuroxime and topical xylometazoline (Otrivin) for three days. Patients who received fluticasone showed more rapid improvement (6.0 versus 9.5 days) than patients who received placebo.

Nasal saline spray, nasal irrigation, and misthumidificationhavebeenrecommended in the past to promote mucociliary clearance by decreasing congestion, moistening the nasal cavity, and removing crusty mucus.31 Most trials have been small, many were not controlled, and methods varied, so evidence supporting their use is only fair.27,28,38 Saline irrigation is safe, and there are no documented serious adverse effects.38 Hypertonic saline irrigation improved symptoms and decreased medication use in patients with chronic sinusitis.39,40 Saline sprays have been shown to reduce symptoms of rhinitis,41 but there are no studies in patients with ABRS. Controlled studies of mist use in URI have not shown a benefit.42,43

Guaifenesin (Hytuss), a mucolytic agent, should improve mucus clearance by thinning secretions, but there is no evidence of clinical benefit. An RCT showed no effect on mucociliary clearance in healthy subjects.44 However, guaifenesin did reduce nasal congestion in an RCT of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus who had acute or chronic rhinosinusitis.45

There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of vitamin C, zinc salt lozenges, or echinacea in patients with ABRS. Using the outcome of cold symptoms after seven days, a meta-analysis of eight clinical trials of zinc salt–lozenge treatment for the common cold did not find a significant benefit (odds ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.19 to 1.29).46 Several trials of echinacea extract in the treatment of the common cold reported a mild benefit, but each trial had serious methodologic flaws. A recent RCT of echinacea in college students with common colds showed no benefit.47

Complications and Referral

Patients with complications or treatment failure after extended antibiotic therapy should be referred to an otolaryngologist (Table 3).6,48 Patients who are referred to otolaryngologists usually are evaluated with nasal endoscopy and a sinus computed tomographic scan. Patients with frequent recurrences of ABRS and inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis should be referred to an allergist for consideration of immunotherapy.

TABLE 3

Indications for Referral in Patients with Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Findings of severe acute bacterial rhinosinusitis

Complications

Periorbital cellulitis

Intracranial abscess

Meningitis

Cavernous sinus thrombosis

Pott’s puffy tumor (infectious erosion of the ethmoid or frontal sinus)

Anatomic defects causing obstruction

Treatment failure after extended course of antibiotics

Frequent recurrences (more than three episodes per year)

Nosocomial infections

Immunocompromised host

Biopsy to rule out granulomatous disease, neoplasms, or fungal infections

Evaluation for immunotherapy of allergic rhinitis


Information from references 6 and 48.

TABLE 3   Indications for Referral in Patients with Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

View Table

TABLE 3

Indications for Referral in Patients with Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Findings of severe acute bacterial rhinosinusitis

Complications

Periorbital cellulitis

Intracranial abscess

Meningitis

Cavernous sinus thrombosis

Pott’s puffy tumor (infectious erosion of the ethmoid or frontal sinus)

Anatomic defects causing obstruction

Treatment failure after extended course of antibiotics

Frequent recurrences (more than three episodes per year)

Nosocomial infections

Immunocompromised host

Biopsy to rule out granulomatous disease, neoplasms, or fungal infections

Evaluation for immunotherapy of allergic rhinitis


Information from references 6 and 48.

The authors indicate that they do not have any conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: none reported.

Members of various medical faculties develop articles for “Practical Therapeutics.” This article is one in a series coordinated by the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Tulsa, Okla. Coordinator of the series is John Tipton, M.D.

 

REFERENCES

1. Scheid DC, Hamm RM. Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults: part I. Evaluation. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70:1685–92.

2. Axelsson A, Chidekel N, Grebelius N, Jensen C. Treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. A comparison of four different methods. Acta Otolaryngol. 1970;70:71–6.

3. Hickner JM, Bartlett JG, Besser RE, Gonzales R, Hoffman JR, Sande MA. Principles of appropriate antibiotic use for acute rhinosinusitis in adults: background. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:498–505.

4. Williams JW Jr, Aguilar C, Cornell J, Chiquette ED, Dolor RJ, Makela M, et al. Antibiotics for acute maxillary sinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD000243

5. Diagnosis and treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 1999;9:1–5.

6. Poole MD. A focus on acute sinusitis in adults: changes in disease management. Am J Med. 1999;106:38S–47S.

7. Low DE, Desrosiers M, McSherry J, Garber G, Williams JW Jr, Remy H, et al. A practical guide for the diagnosis and treatment of acute sinusitis. CMAJ. 1997;156:suppl 6S1–14.

8. Weis M, Hendrick K, Tillotson G, Gravelle K. Multi-center comparative trial of ciprofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis in a primary care setting. Rhinosinusitis Investigation Group. Clin Ther. 1998;20:921–32.

9. Kahn JB, Rielly-Bauvin K, Demartin EL, et al. Multi-center, open-label, randomized study to compare the safety and efficacy of oral levofloxacin and Biaxin in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis in adults. Abstracts from the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the IDSA, San Francisco, September 13–18, 1997. Abstract 578.

10. De Bock GH, Dekker FW, Stolk J, Springer MP, Kievit J, van Houwelingen JC. Antimicrobial treatment in acute maxillary sinusitis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:881–90.

11. De Ferranti SD, Ioannidis JP, Lau J, Anninger WV, Barza M. Are amoxycillin and folate inhibitors as effective as other antibiotics for acute sinusitis? A meta-analysis. BMJ. 1998;317:632–7.

12. Jacobs MR, Felmingham D, Appelbaum PC, Gruneberg RN. The Alexander Project 1998–2000: susceptibility of pathogens isolated from community-acquired respiratory tract infection to commonly used antimicrobial agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52:229–46.

13. Karlowsky JA, Draghi DC, Thornsberry C, Jones ME, Critchley IA, Sahm DF. Antimicrobial susceptibilities ofStreptococcus pneumoniae,Haemophilus influenzae andMoraxella catarrhalis isolated in two successive respiratory seasons in the US. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;20:76–85.

14. Marchant CD, Carlin SA, Johnson CE, Shurin PA. Measuring the comparative efficacy of antibacterial agents for acute otitis media: the “Pollyanna phenomenon.”. J Pediatr. 1992;120:72–7.

15. Poole MD. A mathematical therapeutic outcomes model for sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130;(1 suppl):46–50.

16. Anon JB, Jacobs MR, Poole MD, Ambrose PG, Benninger MS, Hadley JA, et al. Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130;(1 suppl):1–45.

17. Antimicrobial treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Sinus and Allergy Health Partnership. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123;(1 pt 2):5–31.

18. Gwaltney JM Jr, Sydnor A Jr, Sande MA. Etiology and antimicrobial treatment of acute sinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1981;90;(3 pt 3):68–71.

19. Gwaltney JM Jr, Jones JG, Kennedy DW. Medical management of sinusitis: educational goals and management guidelines. The International Conference on Sinus Disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995;167:22–30.

20. Piccirillo JF, Mager DE, Frisse ME, Brophy RH, Goggin A. Impact of first-line vs second-line antibiotics for the treatment of acute uncomplicated sinusitis. JAMA. 2001;286:1849–56.

21. Balk EM, Zucker DR, Engels EA, Wong JB, Williams JW Jr, Lau J. Strategies for diagnosing and treating suspected acute bacterial sinusitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:701–11.

22. Gwaltney JM Jr, Scheld WM, Sande MA, Sydnor A. The microbial etiology and antimicrobial therapy of adults with acute community-acquired sinusitis: a fifteen-year experience at the University of Virginia and review of other selected studies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;90;(3 pt 2):457–61.

23. Williams JW Jr, Holleman DR Jr, Samsa GP, Simel DL. Randomized controlled trial of 3 vs 10 days of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for acute maxillary sinusitis. JAMA. 1995;273:1015–21.

24. Klapan I, Culig J, Oreskovic K, Matrapazovski M, Radosevic S. Azithromycin versus amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute sinusitis. Am J Otolaryngol. 1999;20:7–11.

25. Roos K, Brunswig-Pitschner C, Kostrica R, Pietola M, Leroy B, Rangaraju M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily therapy with telithromycin for 5 or 10 days for the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. Chemotherapy. 2002;48:100–8.

26. Smith MB, Feldman W. Over-the-counter cold medications. A critical review of clinical trials between 1950 and 1991. JAMA. 1993;269:2258–63.

27. Zeiger RS. Prospects for ancillary treatment of sinusitis in the 1990s. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;90;(3 pt 2):478–95.

28. Mabry RL. Therapeutic agents in the medical management of sinusitis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1993;26:561–70.

29. Bravo EL. Phenylpropanolamine and other over-the-counter vasoactive compounds. Hypertension. 1988;11;(3 pt 2):II7–10.

30. Bende M, Fukami M, Arfors KE, Mark J, Stierna P, Intaglietta M. Effect of oxymetazoline nose drops on acute sinusitis in the rabbit. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996;105:222–5.

31. Benninger MS, Anon J, Mabry RL. The medical management of rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;117;(3 pt 2):S41–9.

32. Hayden FG, Diamond L, Wood PB, Korts DC, Wecker MT. Effectiveness and safety of intranasal ipratropium bromide in common colds. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:89–97.

33. Krouse HA, Phung ND, Klaustermeyer WB. Intranasal beclomethasone in severe rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Ann Allergy. 1983;50:385–8.

34. Cuenant G, Stipon JP, Plante-Longchamp G, Baudoin C, Guerrier Y. Efficacy of endonasal neomycin-tixocortol pivalate irrigation in the treatment of chronic allergic and bacterial sinusitis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1986;48:226–32.

35. Qvarnberg Y, Kantola O, Salo J, Toivanen M, Valtonen H, Vuori E. Influence of topical steroid treatment on maxillary sinusitis. Rhinology. 1992;30:103–12.

36. Meltzer EO, Orgel HA, Backhaus JW, Busse WW, Druce HM, Metzger WJ, et al. Intranasal flunisolide spray as an adjunct to oral antibiotic therapy for sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993;92:812–23.

37. Dolor RJ, Witsell DL, Hellkamp AS, Williams JW Jr, Califf RM, Simel DL. Comparison of cefuroxime with or without intranasal fluticasone for the treatment of rhinosinusitis. The CAFFS Trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286:3097–105.

38. Papsin B, McTavish A. Saline nasal irrigation: its role as an adjunct treatment. Can Fam Physician. 2003;49:168–73.

39. Rabago D, Zgierska A, Mundt M, Barrett B, Bobula J, Maberry R. Efficacy of daily hypertonic saline nasal irrigation among patients with sinusitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Fam Pract. 2002;51:1049–55.

40. Heatley DG, McConnell KE, Kille TL, Leverson GE. Nasal irrigation for the alleviation of sinonasal symptoms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;125:44–8.

41. Nuutinen J, Holopainen E, Haahtela T, Ruoppi P, Silvasti M. Balanced physiological saline in the treatment of chronic rhinitis. Rhinology. 1986;24:265–9.

42. Hendley JO, Abbott RD, Beasley PP, Gwaltney JM Jr. Effect of inhalation of hot humidified air on experimental rhinovirus infection. JAMA. 1994;271:1112–3.

43. Forstall GJ, Macknin ML, Yen-Lieberman BR, Medendrop SV. Effect of inhaling heated vapor on symptoms of the common cold. JAMA. 1994;271:1109–11.

44. Sisson JH, Yonkers AJ, Waldman RH. Effects of guaifenesin on nasal mucociliary clearance and ciliary beat frequency in healthy volunteers. Chest. 1995;107:747–51.

45. Wawrose SF, Tami TA, Amoils CP. The role of guaifenesin in the treatment of sinonasal disease in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Laryngoscope. 1992;102:1225–8.

46. Jackson JL, Peterson C, Lesho E. A meta-analysis of zinc salts lozenges and the common cold. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2373–6.

47. Barrett BP, Brown RL, Locken K, Maberry R, Bobula JA, D’Alessio D. Treatment of the common cold with unrefined echinacea. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:939–46.

48. Spector SL, Bernstein IL, Li JT, Berger WE, Kaliner MA, Schuller DE, et al. Parameters for the diagnosis and management of sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102;(6 pt 2):S107–44.



Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Download PDF
  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article