Lal, Devyani

I. Executive Summary Background The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

ObjectiveAdvanced practice providers (APPs) may see patients independently or assist in “collaborative” clinics in otolaryngology practices. Our goal was to redesign the collaborative physician‐APP clinic model to increase patient access, maintain financial sustainability, and optimize patient and staff experience.MethodsThe study was performed in a tertiary care academic rhinology clinic seeing adult patients. The DMAIC framework (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) was used to develop the new model. The process shift between old and new models was analyzed by utilizing a statistical process control chart. Patient and staff surveys were tracked.ResultsThe collaborative physician‐APP model was redesigned into 2 parallel and independently run (“concurrent”) physician and APP clinics. Patient access increased by 38.9% from a mean of 17.9 patients per collaborative clinic (n = 15 days, 269 patients) to 29.3 patients per concurrent clinic (n = 12 days, 352 patients). Medicare reimbursement rate modeling showed the collaborative clinic to operate at a loss of $1341.51 per day, while the concurrent clinic model operated at a $1309.88 gain (200% positive change). Patient and staff experience tracked positively.DiscussionOtolaryngology clinics can become overwhelmed by the volume of empaneled established patients. Traditional collaborative physician‐APP clinics see the same panel of patients together. However, these can be successfully redesigned to a concurrent model. Concurrent clinics improve patient access and provider satisfaction while maintaining patient satisfaction and fiscal performance.Implications for PracticeLeveraging an experienced APP to run a parallel and independent clinic alongside the physician (concurrent clinic model) may improve patient access, financial metrics, and patient/staff experience.

Abstract Background: Elastomeric respirators are reusable and reliable protection from infectious aerosol particles such as SARS-CoV-2. There is a lack of safety data for use in sterile fields limiting application to operating room settings where high-risk aerosol generating procedures are performed. We hypothesized an equivalent reduction in sterile field contamination would be achieved using an elastomeric respirator covered by a surgical mask as compared to a standard surgical mask or N95.Methods: Randomized controlled crossover experiment with repeat measurement comparing microbial and aerosol contamination of operating room surfaces for elastomeric respirators, elastomeric respirators covered by a surgical mask, N95, surgical mask, and no mask. 80 experiments were performed by participants with randomized order and balanced crossover to all masking groups (n=16 per masking group). Participants executed droplet and aerosol generating procedures while wearing: (Group 1) elastomeric respirator with mask, (Group 2) elastomeric respirator only, (Group 3) N95, and (Group 4) surgical mask. Positive control was established with the participant unmasked (Group 5). Contamination was measured by microbial growth on settling plates and optical particle counters (0.2+ and 2 um+ particles).Results: There was a reduction in microbial contamination at the sterile field (p<0.001) for all masks (Groups 1-4) compared to unmasked (Group 5). The mean colony forming units (CFU) at the sterile field was 0 CFUs for elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical mask versus unmasked growing 1.875 CFUs. Compared to the unmasked control, the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical masks all resulted in a -0.75 difference in contamination (95% CI -0.91 to -0.48, p < 0.001). No significant difference in contamination between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a surgical mask was detected. No significant difference in particle counts (0.2 µm+ and 2.0 µm+) between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a standard surgical mask.Conclusion and Relevance: Elastomeric respirators with or without mitigation are as effective as a surgical mask and N95 for reducing contamination at the sterile field in an operating room. Consideration should be given to expanding the use of elastomeric respirators to operating rooms during high-risk aerosol generating procedures.

Objectives To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non‐FDA‐approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the pediatric population. Data Source Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using comprehensive search strategy, including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles. Review Methods A structured literature search was conducted. Extracted data included age, population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal (HPA) axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and growth velocity adverse events. Results A total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as nasal sprays and drops. There were no persistent abnormalities noted in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Growth velocity reduction was reported in 3 of 10 randomized trials. Meta‐analysis of epistaxis and headache showed no significant difference in the incidence of headache or epistaxis when FDA‐approved INCSs were compared to placebo, with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.77‐1.63; P =. 56) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60‐1.18; P =. 32), respectively. Meta‐analysis was not performed for growth velocity, HPA axis suppression, and ocular change. Conclusions INCSs in FDA‐approved routes of administration are generally safe to use in the pediatric population. Use of non‐FDA‐approved INCS drops may increase risk of iatrogenic Cushing’s syndrome. Growth velocity reduction, HPA axis suppression, and visual changes due to INCS are uncommon.

ObjectivesTo address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non–FDA‐approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the adult population.Data SourceSystematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a comprehensive search strategy including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles.Review MethodsA structured literature search was conducted. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment‐related adverse events.ResultsA total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta‐analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA‐approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13‐2.14; P =. 007).ConclusionsOverall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non‐FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta‐analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

As rhinologists return to practice amid SARS‐CoV‐2, special considerations are warranted given the unique features of their subspecialty. Rhinologist manipulation of nasal tissue, proximity, and frequent aerosol‐generating procedures (AGPs) create high risk for infection transmission. There are 4 areas of special consideration to mitigate risk: (1) previsit planning for risk stratification/mitigation, (2) appropriate personal protective equipment, (3) preprocedural testing, and (4) environmental controls. During previsit planning, risk factors of the patient and procedures are considered. High‐risk AGPs are identified by duration, proximity, manipulation of high–viral load tissue, and use of powered instrumentation. Appropriate personal protective equipment includes selection of respiratory and eye protection. COVID‐19 testing can screen for asymptomatic carriers prior to high‐risk procedures; however, alternative testing methods are required in rhinologic patients not eligible for nasopharyngeal testing due to nasal obstruction or skull base defects. Last, AGPs in rhinologic practices require considerations of room air handling and environmental controls.

BackgroundSubtyping chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) by tissue eosinophilia has prognostic and therapeutic implications, and is difficult to predict using peripheral eosinophil counts or polyp status alone. The objective of this study was to test machine learning for prediction of eosinophilic CRS (eCRS).MethodsInput variables were defined as peripheral eosinophil count, urinary leukotriene E4 (uLTE4) level, and polyp status. The output was diagnosis of eCRS, defined as tissue eosinophil count >10 per high‐power field. Patients undergoing surgery for CRS were retrospectively reviewed for complete datasets. Univariate analysis was performed for each input as a predictor of eCRS. Logistic regression and artificial neural network (ANN) machine learning models were developed using random and surgeon‐specific training/test datasets.ResultsA total of 80 patients met inclusion criteria. In univariate analysis, area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) for peripheral eosinophil count and uLTE4 were 0.738 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.616 to 0.840) and 0.728 (95% CI, 0.605 to 0.822), respectively. Presence of polyps was 94.1% sensitive, but 51.7% specific. Logistic regression models using random and surgeon specific datasets resulted in AUC of 0.882 (95% CI, 0.665 to 0.970) and 0.945 (95% CI, 0.755 to 0.995), respectively. ANN models resulted in AUC of 0.918 (95% CI, 0.756 to 0.975) and 0.956 (95% CI, 0.828 to 0.999) using random and surgeon‐specific datasets, respectively. Model comparison of logistic regression and ANN was not statistically different. All machine learning models had AUC greater than univariate analyses (all p < 0.003).ConclusionMachine learning of 3 clinical inputs has the potential to predict eCRS with high sensitivity and specificity in this patient population. Prospective investigation using larger and more diverse populations is warranted.