Kim, Min Su

Abstract Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic therapies for spontaneous epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). Data Sources PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to August 2025. Review Methods Eligible randomized controlled trials evaluating bevacizumab, doxycycline, tranexamic acid, or β‐blockers versus placebo or standard care were included. Outcomes included epistaxis frequency and duration, hemoglobin (Hb), epistaxis severity score (ESS), transfusion or emergent‐care requirements, quality of life (QOL), and adverse events. Results Tranexamic acid did not significantly reduce epistaxis duration or frequency or improve Hb, and it did not change transfusion or emergent‐care needs, but it increased diarrhea (odds ratio 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.7; 8.5]). Bevacizumab produced a modest reduction in epistaxis frequency (standardized mean difference −0.25, 95% CI [−0.47; −0.02]), without significant effects on duration, ESS, Hb, or QOL. Doxycycline showed no significant benefit for duration or frequency. Topical or systemic β‐blockers did not significantly affect ESS, QOL, Hb, or overall adverse events. Across agents, between‐study heterogeneity was generally low to moderate and CIs were wide, reflecting limited sample sizes. Conclusion No pharmacologic agent demonstrated consistent, clinically robust superiority over placebo across primary endpoints. Bevacizumab may modestly reduce bleeding burden, whereas tranexamic acid increases gastrointestinal toxicity without clear efficacy. Pharmacologic control of HHT‐related epistaxis remains suboptimal, underscoring the need for adequately powered trials with standardized outcome measures and optimized dosing and delivery strategies.

An exhalation delivery system for fluticasone (EDS-FLU) is designed to deposit drug into sinonasal regions above the inferior turbinate, particularly sinus drainage pathways not reached by standard nasal steroid sprays. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of EDS-FLU for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We reviewed four independent randomized controlled trials derived from three published articles identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2024. Outcomes included 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores, nasal symptom scores, nasal polyp scores, patient global impression of change (PGIC), responder and surgical indication rates, and adverse events. Compared with EDS-placebo, EDS-FLU produced greater reductions in nasal polyp scores and SNOT-22 scores over 6 months. At 3 months, nasal congestion, facial pain, rhinorrhea, and olfactory dysfunction improved more with EDS-FLU, and PGIC responder and complete response rates were higher at 3 and 6 months. EDS-FLU reduced surgical indication and increased overall responder rates at 3 months but not at 6 months. Epistaxis and nasal septal erosion or ulceration occurred more frequently with EDS-FLU, whereas rates of headache, nasal congestion, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory infection were similar between groups. EDS-FLU provides clinically meaningful improvements in subjective and objective outcomes in CRS but is associated with an increased risk of local nasal adverse events, warranting individualized risk-benefit assessment.