TY - JOUR
T1 - Medical interventions for chronic rhinosinusitis in cystic fibrosis
AU - Karanth, Tulasi Kota
AU - Karanth, Veena Kota Laxminarayan KL
AU - Ward, Bryan K.
AU - Woodworth, Bradford A.
AU - Karanth, Laxminarayan
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the management of Kasturba Medical College, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and University of Alabama for giving us the opportunity to be involved in the completion of this protocol and review. We also thank Nikki Jahnke from the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group for her help with this protocol and review. This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PY - 2019/10/23
Y1 - 2019/10/23
N2 - Background Chronic rhinosinusitis frequently occurs in people with cystic fibrosis. Several medical interventions are available for treating chronic rhinosinusitis in people with cystic fibrosis; for example, different concentrations of nasal saline irrigations, topical or oral corticosteroids, antibiotics-including nebulized antibiotics, dornase alfa and modulators of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) (such as lumacaftor, ivacaftor or tezacaftor). However, the efficacy of these interventions is unclear. Objectives The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different medical interventions in people diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and chronic rhinosinusitis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search of trials register: 22 May 2019. We also searched ongoing trials databases, other medical databases and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of latest additional searches: 20 May 2019. Selection criteria Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of different medical interventions compared to each other or to no intervention or to placebo. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with Cochrane methods and to independently rate the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE guidelines. Main results We identified no trials that met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. The searches identified 47 trials, none of which were eligible for inclusion in the current version of this review.
AB - Background Chronic rhinosinusitis frequently occurs in people with cystic fibrosis. Several medical interventions are available for treating chronic rhinosinusitis in people with cystic fibrosis; for example, different concentrations of nasal saline irrigations, topical or oral corticosteroids, antibiotics-including nebulized antibiotics, dornase alfa and modulators of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) (such as lumacaftor, ivacaftor or tezacaftor). However, the efficacy of these interventions is unclear. Objectives The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different medical interventions in people diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and chronic rhinosinusitis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search of trials register: 22 May 2019. We also searched ongoing trials databases, other medical databases and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of latest additional searches: 20 May 2019. Selection criteria Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of different medical interventions compared to each other or to no intervention or to placebo. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with Cochrane methods and to independently rate the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE guidelines. Main results We identified no trials that met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. The searches identified 47 trials, none of which were eligible for inclusion in the current version of this review.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074016904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074016904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD012979.pub2
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD012979.pub2
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31642064
AN - SCOPUS:85074016904
SN - 1361-6137
VL - 2019
JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
IS - 10
M1 - CD012979
ER -