Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5226_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
19 Мб
Скачать
26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
327

Sinonasal Microbiota Transfer (SNMT)

Microbial (bacterial, fungal, and viral) disruptions can cause or contribute to sinus inammation [5357]. Specic members of the sinonasal microbiome, like S. aureus, can drive maladaptive type 2 inammation in the sinus mucosa via direct superantigen stimulation of T lymphocytes [58], intracellular infection of immune cells [59, 60], superantigen-specic IgE production [61], epithelial barrier disrup­tions [62], and biolm formation [60, 63, 64]. When comparing the microbiome composition (i.e., the genetic material derived from the microbiota of a specic site) of CRS patients to healthy controls, diseased individuals have a lower microbiome diversity compared to healthy subjects [6568]. Similarly, CRS patients experience more epithelial barrier disruptions when their sinonasal microbiome is less diverse [69]. Microbiota-altering therapies, like fecal microbiota transplantation, can suc­cessfully displace pathogens (80–94% cure rate for Clostridioides difcile) [58, 59] and effectively treat inammatory diseases like ulcerative colitis [70] and atopic dermatitis [71]. We believe that a similar treatment strategy can treat rCRS patients who primarily fail due to biolm formation and colonization by resistant bacterial strains.
Currently, there are three RCTs registered in clinicaltrials.gov that investigate the use of a sinonasal microbiota transfer (SNMT) for treatment of rCRS [7274]. Two trials evaluate the transfer of a nasal wash from a healthy donor into the diseased sinus cavity, while one trial investigates transferring endoscopically suctioned mucus from a healthy donor into the diseased sinus. One of the trials appears as completed, but the authors have yet to publish any results [73]. Pilot data from our center shows that an endoscopically guided SNMT can improve SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy scores at 45days, with two patients showing sustained improvement after 6 months (case-series manuscript in preparation). We are currently in the recruitment phase of a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT evaluating SNMT vs placebo (i.e., sham SNMT) for the treatment of rCRS [74]. Results from these trials will answer whether SNMT has any place in the treatment of rCRS.

Conclusion

It is increasingly likely that the treatment strategies for rCRS will continue to evolve in the years to come. Multiple questions remain unanswered regarding experimental treatments for rCRS. Specically, there is an urgent need for high-quality RCT investigating the efcacy of these therapies. Nonetheless, the available evidence for some of these treatments is very promising and will only improve with time. We strongly believe that therapies that target specic members of the sinonasal micro­biome (i.e., phages) or the whole sinonasal community (i.e., SNMT) have the poten­tial to change the way we envision rCRS treatment (Table26.1).
328
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.
Outcomes
Median decrease in MLK scores of 1.50 point (95% CI
1.00–1.50) at 7weeks.
38% improved posttreatment SNOT-22 scores by 9 or
more points. No adverse events reported
Both groups improved their SNOT-22 and MLK scores at
3months without any signicant differences between
them.
No difference in the frequency of culture negativity. No
adverse events reported.
Culture negativity higher in the mupirocin group (14/20,
70%) compared to the PVP-I (9/21, 43%) and saline
(9/19, 47%) groups.
MLK and SNOT-22 improvement in all groups, without
signicant differences. No adverse events reported.
No difference seen in SNOT-22 or MLK scores, but
signicant period effect was seen between the two
treatment periods.
Severe nasal obstruction and congestion in one patient
using CS.
2/11 patients on the CS arm had negative swabs compared
to 1/11in the control group
SNOT-22 and MLK scores tended to improve in the CS
arm without being statistically signicant.
0.08% PVP-I every other day for
7weeks+1mg of budesonide in
240ml of saline OD
2.4mL of 10% PVP-I in 240ml
of 0.9% saline or saline alone,
twice a day for 3months
postoperatively
1% povidone-iodine (PI) vs
0.05% mupirocin rinses vs saline
control sinus irrigations, twice
daily for 30days. Antibiotics
Patients with CRSwNP or
CRSsNP with persistent
symptoms despite adequate
therapy and at least 1 point in
the discharge MLK subdomain
Patients undergoing primary
FESS
Postsurgical patients with
ongoing signs and symptoms of
CRS with a positive culture for
Staphylococcus aureus
295562
Study design N Sample characteristics Intervention and comparison
cohort [27]
Single-blind
RCT [28]
Single-blind
RCT [26]
Treatment
PVP-I rinses Prospective
Table 26.1 Summary of studies that evaluate alternative treatment strategies for recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis
indicated as needed by the
treating surgeon
10ppm of CS twice daily or
saline for 6weeks before
crossing over to the other arm,
with a two-week washout
CS irrigations vs culture-directed
oral antibiotics+saline
CRSsNP patients who
remained symptomatic despite
oral antibiotics, oral or topical
steroids, shampoo irrigations,
or manuka honey irrigations
Postoperative patients with
22
22
Cross-over
RCT [38]
Open-label,
single-blind
RCT [39]
Colloidal
silver (CS)
irrigations
ongoing symptoms of CRS
despite at least one round or
oral antibiotics and a positive
bacterial culture
26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
No signicant differences in SNOT-22, MLK, UPSIT, or
culture negativity. No adverse events observed.
No signicant differences in SNOT-22, MLK, or culture
negativity.
Those receiving no oral antibiotics and MH rinses reduced
their bacterial load signicantly.
No difference on CT, SNOT-22, or endoscopy scores.
LK scores improved more in the mupirocin group 4.0
(95% CI -7.0–1.3) compared to Augmentin 3.0
(1.0–4.0).
SNOT-22 and VAS scores improved from baseline but
were not signicantly different. Culture negativity was
better in the mupirocin group.
Relative risk for residual infection 0.13 (random effects
95% CI 0.06–0.26).
(continued)
Residual Staphylococcus aureus infection after 1month
0.08 (random effects 95% CI: 0.04–0.16).
Low-quality studies precluded any type of
recommendation.
329
16.5% MH augmented with
1.3mg/mL MGO vs saline
rinses, both for 14days and with
culture-directed oral antibiotics
10% MH vs saline rinses for
30days with background oral
and topical steroids+culture-
directed antibiotics
Thyme/honey nasal spray 2 puffs
Postoperative patients with
ongoing symptoms of CRS
despite at least one round or
oral antibiotics and a positive
bacterial culture
Postoperative CRS patients
with purulent discharge on
endoscopy
Postoperative CRS patients
254253
Single-blind
RCT [32]
Single-blind
RCT [33]
Double-blind
RCT [34]
Manuka
honey (MH)
rinses
per nostril vs saline sprays.
Everyone received oral
antibiotics after surgery
125mg of mupirocin in 200ml
of saline+placebo tablets for
28days vs 200ml of
saline+Augmentin for 28days
Mupirocin ranged from 0.05 to
2% once or twice a day. Included
FESS, ongoing symptoms, and
positive culture for
Staphylococcus aureus
Included two RCTs, two
prospective studies, and two
25 CRSwNP with previous full
Double-blind
RCT [40]
Systematic
review and
meta-analysis
[41]
Mupirocin
rinses
the previous study by Jervis etal.
[40]
retrospective studies
No studies met inclusion
criteria
Cochrane
systematic
review [75]
330
mUV/IVS group improved NOSE, TNSS, and PNIF at 6,
12, and 26weeks and reduced polyp size at 16 and
26weeks,
Mometasone group did not improve, but no comparative
analysis was made between groups.
No difference seen in symptom severity, RDSI, olfaction,
rhinomanometry, or nitric oxide.
Carbon monoxide production increased in mUV/VIS
Outcomes
group.
Phage therapy was well tolerated in all cohorts, with no
serious adverse events reported.
Preliminary efcacy data showed improvement with
phage therapy, with 2/9 patients having complete
irradiation of their infection.
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.
No published results.
Mometasone furoate BID vs
mometasone furoate
BID+mUV/VIS phototherapy 3
times per week for 12weeks
CRSwNP with grade II–III
nasal polyps with previous
FESS and long-standing topical
steroid treatment
76
50
Open-label
RCT [45]
Double-blind
Study design N Sample characteristics Intervention and comparison
RCT [46]
(continued)
Antimicrobial
photodynamic
Treatment
Table 26.1
therapy
phage-forming units
8
mUV/VIS vs placebo (low-
intensity visible light)
3×10
CRS criteria met
9 Postoperative CRS patients
Phase I pilot
Bacteriophage
phage-forming units
phage-forming units
8
9
(PFU) twice a day for 7days vs
3×10
(PFU) twice a day for 17days vs
3×10
(PFU) twice a day for seven days
transfer of sinus washes from
healthy donors to placebo. One
trial [74] compares the transfer
of endoscopically suctioned
mucus from healthy donors
with positive cultures for
Staphylococcus aureus
sensitive to the AB-SA01 phage
cocktail
All trial focus on rCRS Two trials [72, 73] compare the
open-label trial
[52]
therapy
Three RCT
registered in
clinicaltrials.
gov [7274]
Sinonasal
microbiota
transfer
against placebo
AFRS allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, CRSsNP chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, CRSwNP chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, FESS functional endo-
scopic sinus surgery, MLK modied Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, PNIF peak nasal inspiratory ow, PVP-I povidone-iodine, rCRS recalcitrant chronic rhinosinus-
itis, UPSIT University of Pennsylvania Smell Identication Test, TNSS total nasal symptom score
26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
331

References

1. Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, Hellings PW, Amin N, Lee SE, etal. Efcacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double­blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1638–50.
2. Gevaert P, Omachi TA, Corren J, Mullol J, Han J, Lee SE, etal. Efcacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Sep;146(3):595–605.
3. Agache I, Beltran J, Akdis C, Akdis M, Canelo-Aybar C, Canonica GW, etal. Efcacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines— recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma. Allergy. 2020;75(5):1023–42.
4. Bavaro N, Gakpo D, Mittal A, Bensko J, Laidlaw TM, Buchheit KM.Efcacy of dupilumab in patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease and previous inadequate response to anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα in a real-world setting. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:2910.
5. Callewaert C, Nakatsuji T, Knight R, Kosciolek T, Vrbanac A, Kotol P, etal. IL-4Rα blockade by Dupilumab decreases Staphylococcus aureus colonization and increases microbial diversity in atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140(1):191–202.e7.
6. Fujieda S, Matsune S, Takeno S, Asako M, Takeuchi M, Fujita H, etal. The effect of Dupilumab on intractable chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Japan. Laryngoscope. 2020;
7. Sano. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled Parallel Group Study assessing the efcacy and safety of Dupilumab in patients with Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis (AFRS) [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 May [cited 2022 Jul 10]. (In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Report No.: NCT04684524. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04684524
8. Johns Hopkins University. Efcacy of Dupilumab for Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis Without Nasal Polyps (CRSsNP): a Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Phase II Study [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2021 Oct [cited 2022 Jul 10]. (In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Report No.: NCT04362501. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04362501
9. Miyake MM, Bleier BS. Future topical medications in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(S1):S32–46.
10. Carlton DA, Beahm DD, Chiu AG. Topical antibiotic therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis: an update. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(S1):S27–31.
11. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, etal. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464.
12. Singhal D, Psaltis AJ, Foreman A, Wormald PJ. The impact of biolms on outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010;24(3):169–74.
13. Zhao YC. Biolm and osteitis in refractory chronic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Clin NA. 2017;50(1):49–60.
14. Foreman A, Psaltis AJ, Tan LW, Wormald PJ.Characterization of bacterial and fungal biolms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23(6):556–61.
15. Wood AJ, Fraser J, Swift S, Amirapu S, Douglas RG.Are biolms associated with an inam­matory response in chronic rhinosinusitis? Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1(5):335–9.
16. Panchatcharam BS, Cooksley CM, Ramezanpour M, Vediappan RS, Bassiouni A, Wormald PJ, etal. Staphylococcus aureus biolm exoproteins are cytotoxic to human nasal epithelial barrier in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(7):871–83.
17. Martens K, Seys SF, Alpizar YA, Schrijvers R, Bullens DMA, Breynaert C, etal. Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin B disrupts nasal epithelial barrier integrity. Clin Exp Allergy J Br Soc Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;51(1):87–98.
18. Ou J, Wang J, Xu Y, Zhang Tao Z, Gang Kong Y, Ming Chen S, etal. Staphylococcus aureus superantigens are associated with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a meta-analysis. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc EUFOS Afl Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol- Head Neck Surg. 2014;271(10):2729–36.
332
19. Desrosiers M, Myntti M, James G.Methods for removing bacterial biolms: invitro study using clinical chronic rhinosinusitis specimens. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21(5):527–32.
20. Oduwole KO, Glynn AA, Molony DC, Murray D, Rowe S, Holland LM, etal. Anti-biolm activity of sub-inhibitory povidone-iodine concentrations against Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(9):1252–6.
21. Ngaage LM, Elegbede A, Brao K, Chopra K, Gowda AU, Nam AJ, etal. The efcacy of breast implant irrigant solutions: a comparative analysis using an invitro model. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Aug;146(2):301–8.
22. Jeronimo LP, Choi MR, Yeon SH, Park SK, Yoon YH, Choi SH, et al. Effects of povi­done-iodine composite on the elimination of bacterial biolm. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(7):884–92.
23. Eggers M, Eickmann M, Zorn J. Rapid and effective virucidal activity of povidone-iodine products against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Modied Vaccinia Virus Ankara (MVA). Infect Dis Ther. 2015;4(4):491–501.
24. Bidra AS, Pelletier JS, Westover JB, Frank S, Brown SM, Tessema B.Rapid in-vitro inactiva­tion of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using povidone­iodine oral antiseptic rinse. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2020;29(6):529–33.
25. Rezapoor M, Nicholson T, Tabatabaee RM, Chen AF, Maltenfort MG, Parvizi J.Povidone­iodine-based solutions for decolonization of nasal Staphylococcus aureus: a randomized, pro­spective, Placebo-Controlled Study. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2815–9.
26. Lee VS, Pottinger PS, Davis GE.Tolerability and effectiveness of povidone-iodine or mupi­rocin versus saline sinus irrigations for chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020 Oct;41(5):102604.
27. Panchmatia R, Payandeh J, Al-Salman R, Kakande E, Habib AR, Mullings W, etal. The ef­cacy of diluted topical povidone-iodine rinses in the management of recalcitrant chronic rhino­sinusitis: a prospective cohort study. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. 2019;276(12):3373–81.
28. Wu PH, Cheng PC, Chang CM, Lo WC, Cheng PW.Efcacy of povidone-iodine nasal irri­gation solution after sinonasal surgery: a Randomized Controlled Study. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(6):1148–52.
29. Kwakman PHS, te Velde AA, de Boer L, Speijer D, Christina Vandenbroucke-Grauls MJ, Zaat SAJ.How honey kills bacteria. FASEB J. 2010;24(7):2576–82.
30. Lu J, Turnbull L, Burke CM, Liu M, Carter DA, Schlothauer RC, etal. Manuka-type honeys can eradicate biolms produced by Staphylococcus aureus strains with different biolm-form­ing abilities. PeerJ. 2014;2:e326.
31. Thamboo A, Thamboo A, Philpott C, Javer A, Clark A.Single-blind study of manuka honey in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngol—Head Neck Surg J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Chir Cervico-Faciale. 2011;40(3):238–43.
32. Ooi ML, Jothin A, Bennett C, Ooi EH, Vreugde S, Psaltis AJ, etal. Manuka honey sinus irrigations in recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis: phase 1 randomized, single-blinded, placebo­controlled trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(12):1470–7.
33. Lee VS, Humphreys IM, Purcell PL, Davis GE.Manuka honey sinus irrigation for the treat­ment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(4):365–72.
34. Hashemian F, Baghbanian N, Majd Z, Rouini MR, Jahanshahi J, Hashemian F. The effect of thyme honey nasal spray on chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc EUFOS Afl Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol—Head Neck Surg. 2015;272(6):1429–35.
35. Das CGA, Kumar VG, Dhas TS, Karthick V, Govindaraju K, Joselin JM, etal. Antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles (biosynthesis): a short review on recent advances. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2020;27:101593.
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.
26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
36. Feizi S, Cooksley CM, Bouras GS, Prestidge CA, Coenye T, Psaltis AJ, etal. Colloidal silver combating pathogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa and MRSA in chronic rhinosinusitis. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2021;202:111675.
37. Feizi S, Cooksley CM, Nepal R, Psaltis AJ, Wormald PJ, Vreugde S. Silver nanoparticles as a bioadjuvant of antibiotics against biolm-mediated infections with methicillin-resis­tant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Pathology (Phila). 2022;54(4):453–9.
38. Scott JR, Krishnan R, Rotenberg BW, Sowerby LJ.The effectiveness of topical colloidal silver in recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized crossover control trial. J Otolaryngol— Head Neck Surg. 2017;46(1):64.
39. Ooi ML, Richter K, Bennett C, Macias-Valle L, Vreugde S, Psaltis AJ, etal. Topical colloi­dal silver for the treatment of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis. Front Microbiol [Internet]. 2018;9. [cited 2022 Jul 3]. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
fmicb.2018.00720
40. Jervis-Bardy J, Boase S, Psaltis A, Foreman A, Wormald PJ.A randomized trial of mupirocin sinonasal rinses versus saline in surgically recalcitrant staphylococcal chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(10):2148–53.
41. Kim JS, Kwon SH.Mupirocin in the treatment of staphylococcal infections in chronic rhino­sinusitis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167369.
42. Head K, Chong LY, Piromchai P, Hopkins C, Philpott C, Schilder AGM, etal. Systemic and topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD011994.
43. Koreck AI, Csoma Z, Bodai L, Ignacz F, Kenderessy AS, Kadocsa E, etal. Rhinophototherapy: a new therapeutic tool for the management of allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115(3):541–7.
44. Kennedy R, Robertson L.Study on the effect of phototherapy for inhibition of symptoms asso­ciated with allergic rhinitis. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;52(2):66.
45. Kiricsi Á, Tiszlavicz L, Rázga Z, Krasznai M, Vóna I, Hirschberg A, etal. Prospective, mul­ticenter, randomized clinical study to evaluate the clinical efcacy and tolerability of long term mixed ultraviolet and visible light phototherapy in eosinophil nasal polyps. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2017;176:118–23.
46. Dulguerov N, Guinand N, Courvoisier D, Landis BN, Lacroix JS, Hauser C.Rhinophototherapy in chronic rhinosinusitis: a double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rhinol J. 2017;55(2):106–12.
47. Harris F, Chateld LK, Phoenix DA.Phenothiazinium based photosensitisers--photodynamic agents with a multiplicity of cellular targets and clinical applications. Curr Drug Targets 2005;6(5):615–627.
48. Biel MA, Sievert C, Usacheva M, Teichert M, Balcom J.Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy treatment of chronic recurrent sinusitis biolms. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1(5):329–34.
49. Biel MA, Jones JW, Pedigo L, Gibbs A, Loebel N.The effect of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy on human ciliated respiratory mucosa. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(12):2628–31.
50. Sulakvelidze A, Alavidze Z, Morris JG.Bacteriophage therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:11.
51. Harper DR, Parracho HMRT, Walker J, Sharp R, Hughes G, Werthén M, etal. Bacteriophages and biolms. Antibiotics. 2014;3(3):270–84.
52. Ooi ML, Drilling AJ, Morales S, Fong S, Moraitis S, Macias-Valle L, etal. Safety and tol­erability of bacteriophage therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis due to Staphylococcus aureus. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2019;145(8):723–9.
53. Okano M, Fujiwara T, Haruna T, Kariya S, Makihara S, Higaki T, etal. Role of fungal antigens in eosinophilia-associated cellular responses in nasal polyps: a comparison with enterotoxin. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(2):171–8.
333
334
54. Hayes SM, Biggs TC, Goldie SP, Harries PG, Walls AF, Allan RN, et al. Staphylococcus aureus internalization in mast cells in nasal polyps: characterization of interactions and poten­tial mechanisms. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(1):147–59.
55. Ou J, Drilling A, Singhal D, Tan NCW, Wallis-Hill D, Vreugde S, etal. Association of intra­cellular Staphylococcus aureus with prognosis in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(8):792–9.
56. Murphy J, Ramezanpour M, Drilling A, Roscioli E, Psaltis AJ, Wormald PJ, etal. In vitro characteristics of an airway barrier-disrupting factor secreted by Staphylococcus aureus. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(2):187–96.
57. Foreman A, Holtappels G, Psaltis AJ, Jervis-Bardy J, Field J, Wormald PJ, et al. Adaptive immune responses in Staphylococcus aureus biolm–associated chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy. 2011;66(11):1449–56.
58. van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdrop M, Fuentes S, Zoetendal EG, De VWM, etal. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difcile. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):407–15.
59. Gough E, Shaikh E, Manges A.Systematic review of intestinal microbiota transplantation (fecal bacteriotherapy) for recurrent Clostridium difcile infection. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2011;53(10):994–1002.
60. Fokkens W, Lund V, Hopkins C, Hellings P, Kern P, Reitsma S, etal. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464.
61. Ott S, Waetzig G, Rehman A, Moltzau-Anderson J, Bharti R, Grasis JA, etal. Efcacy of sterile fecal ltrate transfer for treating patients with Clostridium difcile infection. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(4):799–811.e7.
62. Lux CA, Wagner Mackenzie B, Johnston J, Zoing M, Biswas K, Taylor MW, etal. Antibiotic treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis: prescription patterns and associations with patient out­come and the sinus microbiota. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:3251.
63. Baxter M, Colville A.Adverse events in faecal microbiota transplant: a review of the literature. J Hosp Infect. W.B.Saunders Ltd. 2016;92:117–27.
64. Osman M.Safety and efcacy of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difcile infection from an international public stool bank: results from a 2,050 patient multi­center cohort. Idsa. 2016;
65. Abreu NA, Nagalingam NA, Song Y, Roediger FC, Pletcher SD, Goldberg AN, etal. Sinus microbiome diversity depletion and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum enrichment medi­ates rhinosinusitis. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(151):151ra124.
66. Cope EK, Goldberg AN, Pletcher SD, Lynch SV.Compositionally and functionally distinct sinus microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis patients have immunological and clinically diver­gent consequences. Microbiome. 2017;5(1):1–16.
67. Wagner Mackenzie B, Waite DW, Hoggard M, Douglas RG, Taylor MW, Biswas K.Bacterial community collapse: a meta-analysis of the sinonasal microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19(1):381–92.
68. Gan W, Yang F, Tang Y, Zhou D, Qing D, Hu J, etal. The difference in nasal bacterial micro­biome diversity between chronic rhinosinusitis patients with polyps and a control population. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(6):582–92.
69. Kuhar HN, Tajudeen BA, Mahdavinia M, Heilingoetter A, Ganti A, Gattuso P, etal. Relative abundance of nasal microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis by structured histopathology. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8(12):1430–7.
70. Allegretti JR, Kao D, Sitko J, Fischer M, Kassam Z.Early antibiotic use after fecal microbiota transplantation increases risk of treatment failure. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(1):134–5.
71. Luu K, Sutherland J, Crump T, Liu G, Janjua A. The impact of chronic airway disease on symptom severity and global suffering in Canadian rhinosinusitis patients. J Otolaryngol— Head Neck Surg J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Chir Cervico-Faciale. 2018;47(1):40.
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.
26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
72. The University of Queensland. Phase-II Randomized Control Trial of Nasal Microbiota Transplant Therapy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Without Nasal Polyps (CRSsNP) [Internet].
clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 30]. (In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda:
U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/
NCT05400616
73. Region Skane. Sinonasal Microbiome Transplant as a Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis Without Nasal Polyps (CRSsNP) [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 30]. (In:
ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Available
from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03122795
74. Javer A. SinoNasal Microbiota Transfer (SNMT) to Treat Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 Jul [cited 2022 Jul 12]. Report No.: NCT05454072. Available from:. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/
show/NCT05454072
75. Head K, Chong L, Piromchai P, Hopkins C, Philpott C, Schilder A, etal. Systemic and topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016:4.
335

Index

A
Recalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis,
B
337