Purulent Oedematous Sinusitis (POS) is a particular form of chronic rhinosinusitis observed in 2% of the general population. In spite of its heavy impact on the quality of life, There is no established recommendation for the treatment of primary POS. Long-term low-dose macrolides are currently proposed for these forms of chronic rhinosinusitis when conventional treatments (local corticosteroids, saline rinsing, iterative short courses of antibiotics targeted on pathogens, and surgical opening and drainage) have failed. This treatment with macrolides is currently applied off-label. This study aims to assess the efficacy of macrolides in POS. An extensive workup is fulfilled to exclude other forms of chronic rhinosinusitis (Th2 biased inflammatory diseases, allergic diseases) (allergy, nasosinusal polyposis) or those due to cystic fibrosis or immune deficiency.
POS is a particular form of chronic rhinosinusitis described in 2% of the general population. They lead to an alteration in the quality of daily life with a significant impact on the professional life of 70% of patients. They can be of idiopathic or of secondary origin. The most frequent secondary forms are those observed in cystic fibrosis and immune deficiencies. The pathophysiology of primary POS remains poorly understood, involving Th1-type inflammation and various bacteria (with Staphylococcus Aureus in the forefront). Bacteria could impair the ciliary beat, perpetuating infection and mucosal inflammation. There is no established recommendation for the treatment of primary POS Long-term low-dose macrolides are currently proposed for these forms of chronic rhinosinusitis when conventional treatments (local corticosteroids, saline rinsing, iterative short courses of antibiotics adapted to the germs found, and surgical drainage) have failed. This treatment with macrolides is currently used off label. Macrolides are effective on most gram-positive and gram-positive bacteria. Macrolides also have immunomodulatory properties on the Th1 immune response. This effect is maintained even in the presence of macrolide-resistant bacteria. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, daily administration of half-dose macrolides over the long term (HDLT) has been shown to be effective in reducing the frequency of infectious exacerbations. Uncontrolled trials have described an improvement in symptom scores in chronic rhinosinusitis with or without polyps. The results observed in randomized trials versus placebo are contradictory. A meta-analysis published in 2013 based on these 2 randomized studies was inconclusive regarding the efficacy of HDLT macrolides. The heterogeneity of the inclusion criteria with rhinosinusitis of a different proTh-2 inflammatory profile corresponding to that usually observed in nasal polyposis could explain this lack of result. A review of the literature published in 2017 on HDLT macrolides based on 52 publications observed a very wide diversity of antibiotic protocols in terms of the molecule chosen, the administration scheme and the duration of treatment (8 to 24 weeks). The number of patients studied was often small, which affected the statistical power of the results obtained. The authors of this review conclude by stressing the need to conduct placebo-controlled studies on large populations of patients selected on the phenotypic level. This study propose to evaluate the value of HDLT macrolides in this specific etiological setting. This project plans to exclude all chronic rhinosinusitis of Th2 inflammatory origin (allergy, nasosinusal polyposis) or those due to cystic fibrosis or immune deficiency. In addition, the inclusion centers selected in Ile de France have the necessary expertise to evaluate the impact of azithromycin on mucociliary clearance, notably with the development of innovative tools to measure the efficiency of the ciliary beat (high-speed video microscopy and particle tracking).At the same time, the tolerance of HDLT macrolides measured in patients with cystic fibrosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is excellent, provided that the well-documented contraindications are respected. No serious adverse effects have been reported, apart from cases of transient or permanent moderate hearing loss requiring audiometric monitoring. No specific study regarding the treatment of primary POS is available to date, even tough POS is very prevalent and its management is still associated with poor patient-reported outcomes.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
230
Treatment assigned by randomization will be prescribed immediately. The active or placebo will be dispensed by the centre's pharmacy. Treatment will be taken in the morning or evening for 3 months.
Treatment assigned by randomization will be prescribed immediately. The active or placebo will be dispensed by the centre's pharmacy. Treatment will be taken in the morning or evening for 3 months.
CHU Bordeaux
Bordeaux, France
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGHôpital Henri Mondor
Créteil, France
RECRUITINGCHU Bicêtre, AP-HP
Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
RECRUITINGCHU Lille
Lille, France
RECRUITINGCHU de la Croix Rousse
Lyon, France
RECRUITINGHospices de Lyon
Lyon, France
RECRUITINGHôpitaux Universitaires de Marseille Conception
Marseille, France
RECRUITINGCHRU de Nancy
Nancy, France
RECRUITINGCentre Hospitalier Universitaire De Nantes
Nantes, France
RECRUITINGHôpital Lariboisiere
Paris, France
RECRUITING...and 3 more locations
Comparison of sinonasal outcome test (SNOT) 22
Comparison of the means of the Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT 22) specific quality of life scores after 3 months of treatment. (min = 0, max = 110)
Time frame: 3 months
Number of infectious rhinosinus exacerbations
The number of infectious rhinosinus exacerbations during the 3-month period,
Time frame: 3 months
Number of courses of antibiotics used
Number of courses of antibiotics used during the 3-month period other than azithromycin or placebo
Time frame: 3 months
Visual analog scales of symptoms
Visual analog scales (VAS) of symptoms (self-assessment) (nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, facial pain, smell disorder, nasal hyperactivity, epistaxis). The VAS measures the intensity of pain on a scale from 0 to 10.
Time frame: 6 months
Semi-quantitative symptom scale
Semi-quantitative 4-point symptom scale assessed by the practitioner (min = 0, max = 3)
Time frame: 6 months
Semi-quantitative nasal endoscopy score
Semi-quantitative nasal endoscopy score (0: absent/1: present) for each of the following items: presence of pus, edema, erythema, crusts, polyps, scored out of 5 per nasal cavity (maximum score of 10) (Lund Kennedy score),
Time frame: 6 months
Quantitative Lund MacKay CT score
Quantitative Lund MacKay CT score (0: no sinus opacity, 1: moderate opacity, 2: total opacity) measured on 12 for each side (score of 24 maximum),
Time frame: 6 months
Nasal inflammation flow
Nasal inflammation (nasal nitric oxide (NO) flow, neutrophil polynuclear cell (NPC) and lymphocyte infiltrate on nasal cytology and assays of interleukin 6, 8 and elastase produced by NPCs in nasal secretions)
Time frame: 6 months
General quality of life
General quality of life Short form 36 (SF-36) (min=1, max=100)
Time frame: 6 months
Days off work
Number of days off work in the 3 months prior to treatment and the number of days off work during the 3 months of treatment
Time frame: 6 months
Olfactory score
Olfactory score (sniffing's stick test),
Time frame: 6 months
Bacteria present on the protected nasal swab
Identification and quantification of bacteria observed on the protected nasal swab (semi-quantitative score
Time frame: 6 months
Number of participants with clinical adverse events as assessed by compliance
Clinical tolerance evaluated by the effective intake of tablets
Time frame: 3 months
Number of participants with biological adverse events as assessed by compliance
Biological tolerance evaluated by the effective intake of tablets
Time frame: 3 months
Residual effect of the treatment using the SNOT 22 quality of life questionnaires
At 6 months (i.e., 3 months after cessation of treatment), the residual effect of treatment will be measured using the SNOT 22 quality of life questionnaires
Time frame: 6 months
Residual effect of the treatment using the SF-36 quality of life questionnaires
At 6 months (i.e., 3 months after cessation of treatment), the residual effect of treatment will be measured using the SF-36 quality of life questionnaires
Time frame: 6 months
Residual effect of the treatment using the VAS score
At 6 months (i.e., 3 months after cessation of treatment), the residual effect of treatment will be measured using the VAS score. The VAS measures the intensity of pain on a scale from 0 to 10.
Time frame: 6 months
Residual effect of the treatment using the semi-quantitative symptom scale
At 6 months (i.e., 3 months after cessation of treatment), the residual effect of treatment will be measured using the semi-quantitative symptom scale
Time frame: 6 months
Residual effect of the treatment using the nasal endoscopy
At 6 months (i.e., 3 months after cessation of treatment), the residual effect of treatment will be measured using the nasal endoscopy
Time frame: 6 months
Residual effect of the treatment using the bacteriological samples.
At 6 months (i.e., 3 months after cessation of treatment), the residual effect of treatment will be measured using the bacteriological samples.
Time frame: 6 months
Quantitative aspect of the ciliary beat
Quantitative aspect of the ciliary beat (frequency of the beat in Hertz) on a small number of centers having the equipment
Time frame: 6 months
Qualitative aspect of the ciliary beat
Qualitative aspect of the ciliary beat (coordination (normal or dyskinetic), index of efficiency)) on a small number of centers having the equipment
Time frame: 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.