EDS‐FLU efficacy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with or without prior sinus surgery in ReOpen1 and ReOpen2 randomized controlled trials

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe inability of topical medications to reach sinus cavities is a potential reason for lack of efficacy in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). One purpose of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is to enable delivery of medications into the sinus cavities. The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS‐FLU; XHANCE) creates unique biomechanics that enable deposition of intranasal corticosteroid into sinuses and sinus drainage pathways but may have differing efficacy in operated versus unoperated sinuses. Two 24‐week randomized trials (ReOpen1/2) evaluated EDS‐FLU versus EDS‐placebo in patients with CRS, stratified by surgical status.MethodsSurgery‐naive (n = 332) and prior‐surgery (n = 215) patient groups were analyzed as pooled data from ReOpen1/2. Outcome measures (least‐squares mean change from baseline) included combined symptom score (CSS) and congestion score at weeks 4, 8, and 12 and average of percentages of opacified volume (APOV) of ethmoid/maxillary sinuses on CT and Sinonasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT‐22) total score at week 24.ResultsBaseline scores suggested moderate–severe disease: mean CSS = 5.8; APOV = 67.2%. EDS‐FLU produced significant improvement versus placebo (p < 0.05): CSS (surgery‐naive, −0.68 vs. −1.42; prior ESS, −0.70 vs. −1.87); congestion (surgery‐naive, −0.24 vs. −0.59; prior ESS, −0.24 vs. −0.69); and SNOT‐22 (surgery‐naive, −7.56 vs. −18.30; prior ESS, −10.72 vs. −18.74). Similar results were observed for APOV (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between surgery subgroups with either EDS‐FLU dose.ConclusionEDS‐FLU improved symptoms, sinus opacification, and quality of life in patients with CRS with or without prior ESS, suggesting a role for EDS‐FLU in both populations.