Skip to main content

New Rhinosinusitis Guidelines Discourage Antibiotics

March 21, 2012 — New Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines state that most cases of acute rhinosinusitis are caused by viruses and should not be treated with antibiotics.
According to a written release accompanying the guidelines, up to 98% of cases are caused by viruses, and therefore would not be responsive to antibiotics.
The guidelines, authored by an 11-member panel chaired by Anthony W. Chow, MD, professor emeritus of infectious diseases at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, included contributions from experts from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Physicians, and the Society of Academic Medicine.
"There is no simple test that will easily and quickly determine whether a sinus infection is viral or bacterial, so many physicians prescribe antibiotics 'just in case,' " noted Dr. Chow in a news release. However, the use of antibiotics with viral infections may increase antibiotic resistance, costs, and the risk for adverse effects, he cautioned.
In a major shift from older guidelines developed by other organizations, the new IDSA guidelines also recommend treating bacterial sinus infections with amoxicillin-clavulanate vs amoxicillin, the current standard of care. The addition of clavulanate helps to overcome antibiotic resistance by inhibiting an enzyme that breaks the antibiotic down.
Dr. Chow notes that this recommendation was made because of increases in antibiotic resistance, as well as the widespread use of pneumococcal vaccines, which have changed the pattern of bacteria that cause sinus infections.
The guidelines also recommend against using other commonly used antibiotics, including azithromycin, clarithromycin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, because of increasing drug resistance.
Other IDSA recommendations include shorter treatment times with antibiotics in adult patients; avoidance of decongestants and antihistamines, which may worsen symptoms; and use of irrigation with sterile solution.
The IDSA guidelines use the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, which is designed to more clearly assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
"The guidelines are transparent, clearly stating the level of evidence for each recommendation and pointing out where we need more research," Thomas M. File Jr, MD, coauthor of the guidelines and chair of the Infectious Disease Section at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio, noted in the news release.
Independent commentator Bradley F. Marple, MD, professor and vice chairman of the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, noted that these guidelines deviate significantly from the majority of existing evidence-based guidelines in their recommendations for empiric therapy for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.
"While most national guidelines recommend the use of amoxicillin, the authors suggest a theoretic advantage for using amoxicillin-clavulanate as a first-line choice," Dr. Marple told Medscape Medical News.
"However, these concerns may not be supported by high-level clinical outcomes studies, which fail to demonstrate a clinical advantage of amoxicillin-clavulanate over amoxicillin."
According to Dr. Marple, in most guidelines, the authors rely on available high-level clinical outcome data, whereas in this case, IDSA has chosen to focus on microbiological data. "Empiric antibiotic recommendations in these guidelines are based upon 2 observations: the increasing prevalence of Haemophilus influenzae, and the increasing prevalence of beta-lactamase-producing respiratory pathogens in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, many obtained from cultures of otitis media, which may not accurately reflect prevalence among rhinosinusitis cases overall."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...