Alternative therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis: A review

Abstract

The use of alternative medicine in chronic rhinosinus-itis (CRS) continues to increase in popularity, for the most part without meeting the burden of being based on sound clinical evidence. New and emerging treat-ments, both natural and developed, are numerous, and it remains a challenge for otolaryngologists as well as general practitioners to keep up to date with these therapies and their efficacy. In this systematic review, we discuss a number of alternative therapies for CRS, their proposed physiologic mechanisms, and evidence supporting their use. This analysis is based on our re-view of the English-language literature on alternative therapies for CRS (we did not include any therapies that are already recommended by accepted profession-al bodies). Data collection was performed using the PubMed database (not restricted to MEDLINE due to the nature of the subject matter), the Cochrane data-bases, and bibliography searches. We found that while many of the alternative therapies we reviewed might have a firm basis in science, they lack any clinical ev-idence to support their use specifically for CRS. Some emerging therapies, such as therapeutic ultrasonog-raphy and phonophoresis, show some promise, based on a growing body of positive evidence. In addition, the use of baby shampoo, thyme honey, and bromelain additives to saline lavage in CRS are all supported by clinical evidence, as is Sinupret, an oral preparation that contains echinacea. However, higher levels of ev-idence gleaned from large, well-designed, prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed before any of these therapies can be recommended.

Introduction

The standard ENT consultation is changing in some ways within both specialist and general practices. Pa-tients’ own Internet research and the widespread use of social media platforms by commercial entities to promote their products¹ have allowed some patients to form very mature opinions of their disease and how it might be treated with alternative therapies. Physi-cians have a duty to know about these therapies, es-pecially with respect to their risks of potential harm to patients.

In a systematic review published by the World Health Organization in 2000, Ernst reported a wide discrepancy in the proportion of patients who reported using com-plementary and alternative medicine (CAM), ranging from 9 to 65%.2 In Germany and the United States, there is evidence to suggest that the use of CAM has become increasingly prevalent since 1945.²

In otolaryngology, perhaps the condition most often treated with CAM therapies is chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). According to a 2010 report by Rotenberg and Bertens, 15.6% of CRS patients in one Canadian co-hort admitted to using alternative therapies to treat their CRS.³ A study published in 1999 by Krouse and Krouse included 120 patients with sinusitis; 35% of them reported using chiropractic therapy, 29% herbal therapy, and 19% acupuncture.⁴

Increasing healthcare costs and poor access to healthcare have been reported as possible reasons for the growing use of CAM in the United States.⁵ Social networking sites are also used to promote the use of CAM by healthcare professionals and amateurs alike.¹

In a 2012 Dutch study, Kooreman and Baars obtained economic data from general practices indicating a re-duction of 0 to 30% in cost when the use of CAM was combined with or used instead of allopathic medicine.⁶ However, their study did not compare disease entities within rhinosinusitis, and population bias² might have existed because the cohorts using CAM were primarily made up of younger women. For these reasons, their claims were disputed by Sampson et al, who contended that the analysis was based on an incorrect interpre-tation of the data.⁷

In the state of South Australia, a survey of 3,015 residents found that 52.2% were CAM users.⁸ Some 49.7% used CAM concurrently with allopathic medi-cines, although fewer than half of them admitted this use to their physician. In an alarming finding, half of the survey respondents incorrectly believed that these medicines had been independently tested for quality, safety, and efficacy by the Australian government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration.

As for the economic benefits of CAM, the data are conflicting.⁹ The disparities likely represent the varied nature of the conditions treated and the efficacy of the CAM agents available.

In this article, we present our systematic review of all the alternative therapies currently reported in the literature and the corresponding clinical evidence where applicable.

Materials and methods

Our study looked at all published therapeutic options for CRS that we classified as CAM. Our research team limited our search to English-language journals, but we specified no timeline.

We searched the PubMed database using the search terms “chronic rhinosinusitis,” “CRS,” “chronic rhini-tis,” “chronic sinusitis,” “natural,” “alternative,” “com-plementary,” “Chinese,” “traditional,” and “herbal.” Because of the scarcity and poor quality of the research in some cases, it was not possible to confine ourselves to using only MEDLINE indexes, and this was taken into account when we formulated our clinical recom-mendations. Despite the lack of well-founded data, we thought it was important to include these therapies to create an up-to-date resource on this topic. We excluded studies that were specifically performed on acute rhinosinusitis. However, many studies did not specify a specific subtype of disease, and we included these in our discussion for the sake of completeness. We also included articles in which multiple subtypes of sinusitis, including CRS, were mentioned (e.g., CRS with allergic rhinitis).

Our exclusion criteria were designed to focus our review outside the realm of mainstream therapies, and therefore we decided to exclude therapies that have received recommendations (including negative recommendations) for use in CRS by a professional body as outlined in the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012.¹⁰

For CRS without nasal polyps, these therapies included topical and systemic steroids, topical and systemic antibiotics/antimycotics, saline irrigations, bacterial lysates, mucolytics, proton-pump inhibitors, decongestants, systemic antihistamines, probiotics, and immunotherapies. In the postoperative setting,

we included xylitol and sodium hypochorite additives to saline lavage.

For CRS with nasal polyps, we excluded furosemide, immunosuppressants other than steroids, and biologic drugs (e.g., anti-IL-5 antibodies). However, we did not exclude phytotherapy from our review because we aim to include any CAM treatments within the rapidly ex-panding natural medicine field that may have evidence for use in CRS.

Results

Topical mainstream therapies. The use of intranasal steroids and saline lavage has been supported by good evidence in treating CRS with nasal polyps, and a 2013 review by Piromchai et al concluded that these agents are also beneficial in CRS without nasal polyps.¹¹ The side effects of intranasal steroids are rare; when they do occur, they include growth delay, adrenal suppres-sion, and some local side effects such as epistaxis.¹² Nevertheless, these risks might lead some to explore alternate options for therapy. And while saline lavage is a mainstream therapy that is widely accepted on the basis of evidence, its efficacy may be limited and it is by no means a cure for most.¹¹

Topical antibiotics might play an adjunctive role in the treatment of refractory CRS without nasal polyps; they are not indicated as a first-line therapy, and their use is not supported in CRS with nasal polyps. Other topical mainstream therapies such as antihistamines and decongestants do not affect quality of life in the long term, and they are not further discussed here.

Topical alternative therapies. Among the topical alternative therapies we reviewed are baby shampoo, honey, and capsaicin.

Baby shampoo. Baby shampoo (Johnson’s baby shampoo unless otherwise stated) consists of three surfactants: PEG-80 sorbitan laurate, cocamidopropyl betaine, and sodium trideceth sulfate, and it belongs to a family of surfactants that can be used to treat CRS. (Another member of this family is SinuSurf, a previously available surfactant that was removed from commercial production because it was implicated in causing a loss of smell and possibly other side effects in some users.¹³) For treating CRS, nonperfumed baby shampoo is added to isotonic saline lavage fluid at a 1% dilution. Lavage is performed as usual. The action of baby shampoo is twofold; it acts as a mucolytic and a bactericidal detergent.

It is believed that surfactants, including baby sham-poo, may also exert antibiofilm activity due to their detergent action against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, two major CRS pathogens.¹⁴ An in vitro study by Chiu et al published in 2008

demonstrated the antibiofilm-forming activity of baby shampoo against planktonic P aeruginosa and biofilm formation at standard dosing concentrations of 1%.15 The authors did not observe any action against estab-lished biofilms.¹⁵

Study results have been conflicting with respect to ciliary dysfunction after the use of topical surfactants. A murine explant model of mucociliary function demonstrated increased ciliary beating when a modified bicarbonate -buffered surfactant solution was applied to the tissue.¹⁶ That study found no ciliary toxicity in the murine model. An ex vivo study using human tissue from diseased sinuses to determine the potential toxicity of SinuSurf indicated that no toxicity occurred at the recommended dose, although a dose-related toxicity was observed at higher doses.¹⁷

Clinical studies of surfactants for use in CRS are of varied strengths. In a comprehensive review published in 2013, Rosen et al discussed three human clinical studies of irrigated surfactants (baby shampoo).¹⁴ But only one of these studies was a randomized, controlled trial. In a randomized controlled study of 40 patients, Farag et al found no statistically significant differences in subjec-tive postoperative symptoms when baby shampoo (1% in isotonic saline) was compared with saline alone.¹⁸

The in vitro study by Chiu et al in 2008 found sig-nificant improvement in recalcitrant postoperative symptoms, although the findings in the treatment group might have been confounded by a small cohort within that received concomitant antibiotics.¹⁵

The paucity of adequately powered studies of baby shampoo makes it difficult to draw conclusions as to its efficacy in nasal lavage, although the available data do indicate that the potential for toxicity is likely to be low when it is used in the recommended amount. The most commonly reported side effects were burning of the mucosa and nasal irritation.

Honey. Investigators have reported that manuka honey, manuka-type honey, and Sidr honey exert an-tibiofilm activity against S aureus and P aeruginosa. ^19
-21 An in vivo study of the anti-S aureus biofilm activity of manuka-type honey and its toxicity in sheep found a significant reduction of biofilm in treated subjects and no reported toxicity when it was used in a topical concentration of 1.8 mg/ml in normal saline.²¹

A human clinical trial conducted by Thamboo et al found no significant differences in subjective sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) scores and endoscopic grading scores between nostrils treated with manuka honey and untreated control nostrils.²² In another clinical trial, Hashemian et al used thyme honey (honey made from thyme pollen) as a postoperative adjunct along with saline lavage and an intranasal steroid.²³ During a 2-month follow-up period, they

found no significant differences in endoscopic grad-ing scores and SNOT-22 scores between the thyme honey users and placebo controls, although the thyme honey group did show a greater reduction in the endoscopic scores.

Capsaicin. Capsaicin is an active component of chili peppers. It is a known stimulator of sensory nerve C fibers, and it is known to stimulate the release of calci-tonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).²⁴ For the treatment of CRS, a concentration of sensory neuropeptides such as CGRP has been found to positively correlate with inflammatory cell concentrations and worsening symptoms. In pig and guinea pig models, it has been demonstrated that capsaicin application leads to a decrease in CGRP levels and destruction of sensory C fibers in the nasal mucosa, suggesting a mechanism of its use in CRS.²⁵

In a study published in 1991, Lacroix and colleagues followed 16 patients with CRS and rhinitis medica-mentosa over 5 weeks as they applied capsaicin nasal spray weekly.²⁶ The authors noted reduced levels of CGRP in mucosal biopsies after application and a significant reduction in symptoms over a 6-month follow-up. Since capsaicin is a direct stimulator of C fibers, it is necessary to apply it with the use of local anesthesia, which calls into question its feasibility as a treatment for CRS.

Osteopathic manipulation. Myofascial physical manipulation can increase mobility in the thoracic and cervical spine, pelvis, and temporomandibular joint and facilitate the drainage of obstructed parana-sal secretions by addressing hypomobile craniofacial joints.²⁷ However, studies of these procedures are prone to bias because of the difficulty in blinding a patient and therapist.

Méndez-Sanchez et al described a nonrandomized, noncontrolled case series on manual therapy for CRS in 11 women with CRS and midfacial pain.²⁷ It is unclear if the diagnosis of CRS was made by a physician or by a physical therapist using criteria from the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. During the 7-week study, patients underwent three sessions of physical therapy. Patients who were tak-ing prescription medications or who had undergone head and neck surgery, including facial surgery, were not included in the analysis. The authors found that manual therapy conclusively reduced symptoms of CRS and midface pain. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only published study to date that has examined the link between manual therapy and CRS symptoms. However, in view of the small number of patients, the exclusion criteria, treatment bias, and the lack of a control group, reaching conclusions about this therapy is impractical.

Nasosympatico treatment. Nasosympatico treat-ment (Röder technique) is an osteopathic technique that involves direct massage of the sinus ostia with cotton swabs. It is occasionally supplemented with the application of botanical essential oils such as eucalyptus, lavender, pine, thyme, and clove. It is believed that direct stimulation of the nasal mucosa with oils and cotton swabs increases the sympathetic inflow to the sphenopalatine ganglion, leading to a reduction in CRS symptoms.²⁸ We could not find any clinical comparative data in the literature regarding this technique.

Therapeutic ultrasonography. Therapeutic ultra-sonography is primarily used in sports medicine and physiotherapy as an in-office treatment for many mus-culoskeletal conditions. It is believed that ultrasonic waves aid healing and promote a favorable inflammatory response in these cases.

While ultrasonography had already been advocated as a treatment for CRS, it was Bartley and Young in 2009 who suggested that the mechanism behind its effect was its inhibition and destruction of biofilms and its bactericidal properties, which had been established in vitro.²⁹

The therapeutic ultrasonography procedure in-volves the placement of 1- to 15-mHz ultrasound probes just inside the nasal vestibule and on the skin

overlying the maxillary and frontal sinuses. Ultra-sound waves are believed to exert three effects within the diseased tissue—thermal energy, cavitation, and acoustic streaming:

• Thermal energy is an unwanted effect of therapeu-tic ultrasonography. It can be significantly reduced by pulsing the ultrasound probe on and off.

• Cavitation occurs when bubbles of gas form from dissolved gases during the administration of ultra-sound wave cycles as energy is released.

• Acoustic streaming refers to the shear stress that oc-curs in the cell membranes as ultrasound waves are deliv-ered. This stress interferes with cell membrane signaling.

Therapeutic ultrasonography is believed to play a role in reducing bacterial biofilms and exerting anti-in-flammatory action through the interference created by cavitation and the disruption of physiologic processes by acoustic streaming.³⁰

Karosi et al conducted an in vitro study of patients who had received a diagnosis of CRS with nasal pol-yps.³¹ They examined the surgically resected polyps and treated them with 0.4 mHz of ultrasound for 5 minutes. Treatment resulted in a significant reduction in biofilm thickness and inflammatory cell count in the stromal layer of the polyps.

In a recent review, Bartley et al looked at five published studies in which therapeutic ultrasonography was used to treat CRS in a total of 169 patients.³⁰ One of these stud-ies was a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial by Ansari et al, who found a significantly greater reduction of CRS symptoms in the ultrasonography group than in the sham ultrasonography group.³² Another study by Ansari et al comparing pulsed and nonpulsed thera-peutic ultrasonography found no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups.³³ The results of the review by Bartley et al were supportive of the use of therapeutic ultrasonography in CRS.³⁰

Phonophoresis. In phonophoresis, ultrasound waves are used to help deliver topical pharmaceuticals to nasal tissue. It has also been used in musculoskeletal medicine to allow for better delivery of anti-inflammatory agents through the skin.

In a randomized, double-blind study of 60 patients with CRS, Ansari et al compared ultrasonography with erythromycin phonophoresis or ultrasonography alone.³⁴ The authors found a statistically significant improvement in total symptom scores in both groups; the degree of improvement was significantly greater in the erythromycin phonophoresis group. This emerg-ing treatment shows promise for patients with CRS, as the supporting positive evidence base appears to be growing.

Phototherapy. Low-level laser therapy and near-infra-red laser therapy have drawn some interest as emerging treatment options for CRS. These phototherapies use different spectrums and intensities of light to reduce biofilm formation and increase the activity of antibiotics against sinus pathogens in vitro.³⁵

In a study by Wang et al, phototherapy performed on rats with asthma was shown to considerably reduce levels of interleukin 4 (IL-4) in the bronchial lavage fluid and increase the levels of interferon gamma (IFNγ).³⁶ In addition, the concentration of eosinophils was decreased in the lung parenchyma and serum. Phototherapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the laser-treated rats, but the differ-ence between them and a control group treated with the inhaled steroid budesonide was not significant. These results in a disease process with pathophysi-ologic processes similar to those of CRS with nasal polyps suggest that phototherapy might play a role in treating the latter.

In a small clinical pilot study, Naghdi et al treated 15 CRS patients with low-level laser therapy over the frontal and maxillary sinuses for a total of 198 seconds per sinus.³⁷ The estimated amount of energy delivered to the treated area was 6 J. The entire regimen was delivered three times a week for 3 weeks plus once more for a total of 10 sessions. The authors reported

a significant reduction in symptoms compared with preintervention questionnaire scores. A similar study by Krespi and Kizhner demonstrated the clinical effi-cacy of near-infrared illumination with and without a topical photosensitizer, although these patients were not compared with those of a control group.³⁸

Phototherapy for CRS is in its relative infancy, and better-designed studies are needed to properly assess its clinical effect.

Acupuncture. The traditional Chinese medical procedure is used to reestablish homeostasis in body systems. In CRS, in vivo experiments in anesthetized quail found that needle punctures at specific lung acupoints significantly improved tracheal mucociliary clearance.³⁹

The results of a human trial of acupuncture conducted by Kim et al showed promise in the treatment of allergic rhinosinusitis.⁴⁰ Sertel et al published a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acupuncture that looked specifically at nasal blockage due to either CRS without nasal polyps or chronically hypertrophic inferior turbinates.⁴¹ They found significant improve-ment in nasal airflow on anterior rhinomanometry in the treatment arm.

In a three-armed study by Stavem et al, one group re-ceived mainstream CRS treatment (antibiotics, steroids, saline lavage, and decongestants) for 3 months while the other two groups were administered acupuncture and sham acupuncture.⁴² The differences in treatment results were not statistically significant, but they did trend toward favoring the mainstream treatment. No clinically significant difference was observed between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.

A similar study by Rössberg et al using the same three study arms for 2 to 4 weeks of treatment found no significant differences between acupuncture and mainstream CRS treatment based on patient question-naire scores and computed tomography findings over a 12-week follow-up.⁴³

Based on the results of these studies, we do not recommend the use of acupuncture for treating CRS.

Systemic therapies. Among the systemic therapies we reviewed are herbal supplements, including a variety of Chinese traditional medicines, and homeopathy.

Herbal supplements. In a North American study, Blanc et al surveyed the alternative medicine use of 175 individuals with rhinosinusitis, some of whom were not taking a prescription medication.⁴⁴ Their findings were surprising in that 26% of the respon-dents reported using at least one herbal remedy. Some 9% of respondents were taking a traditional Chinese herbal remedy.

Most herbal supplements are marketed in the form of an extract from one or more botanical sources. They

can be taken orally in capsule form or as an additive to tea. The most commonly used herbal supplements in CRS are echinacea, bromelain, and a multitude of Chinese herbal extracts and herbs.⁴⁴ Less common-ly used herbal supplements include ascorbic acid, N-acetylcysteine, quercetin, undecylenic acid, Urtica dioica, Esberitox, Myrtol, cineole, Bi Yuan Shu, and Ecballium elaterium.

Echinacea is a popular alternative medicine and is widely studied (Table 1). In CRS, the most common species used are Echinacea pallida, Echinacea purpurea, and Echinacea angustifolia. ⁴⁵ Echinacea’s immuno-modulatory effect appears to be attributable to antiviral activation of the immune system, which is evident by the upregulation of the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, IL -10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) in human macrophages.⁴⁶

Table 1.

Selected characteristics of some systemic herbal medicines proposed for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Therapy	Origin	Proposed mechanism	Dosing regimen	Evidence level (if applicable)	Side effects	Drug interactions
Echinacea	Herbal extract, commonly obtained from Echinacea pallida, Echinacea purpurea, and Echinacea angustifolia	Immune activator and antiviral 3 times a day for 7 days (increases human IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα)		No clinical evidence available to support its use in CRS	GI upset, headache, muscle ache, dizziness, and hepatotoxicity with prolonged use⁶¹	NSAIDs (increased risk of GI upset), immunomodulators⁶²
Bromelain	Pineapple (Ananas comosus) extract	Immune activator (stimulates IL-1β, IL-6, TNFα, and IFNγ production)	500 to 1,000 mg/day orally	Positive effects in acute sinusitis; studies in CRS too small for valid interpretation^48 -50	GI upset and anaphylaxis (rare)⁶¹	Anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents (potentiates)⁶²
N-acetyl-cysteine	Derivative of amino acid L-cysteine and precursor for glutathione	Suppresses NF-κB activation by TNFα in alveolar macrophages²⁸	Taken orally	Evidence in a 1980 clinical trial⁶³ inconclusive (level 3b) due to crossover in study arms	GI upset (rare)⁶¹	None known
Sinupret	Herbal extract contains Sambucus nigra, Primula veris, Rumex acetosa, Verbena officinalis, and Gentiana lutea	In vitro reduction of proinflammatory cytokine TNFα⁶⁴	2 tablets/day for 7 days orally	Significant improvement in symptoms and radiologic outcomes in a randomized trial (level 2 evidence)⁶⁵	Kidney stones, allergic reactions, GI upset, numbness, and dermatitis⁶¹	None known
Bi Yuan Shu	Chinese medicine consisting of Magnolia liliiflora, Xanthium strumarium, and Astragalus membranaceus	Unknown	30 ml/day in three divided doses for 20 days orally	Level 2 evidence for use in postoperative FESS patients	None known	None known

Key: IL = interleukin; TNFα = tumor necrosis factor alpha; CRS = chronic rhinosinusitis; GI = gastrointestinal; NSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; IFNγ = interferon gamma; NF-κB = nuclear factor kappa-light-chain enhancer of activated B cells; FESS = functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Bromelain is a pineapple extract consisting of prote-ase and nonprotease components (Table 1). Bromelain inhibits nuclear factor kappa-light-chain enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), and it stimulates the production of proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, TNFα, and IFNγ.⁴⁷ Three separate, randomized, controlled trials found that it reduced symptoms of CRS; however, all three trials are now more than 50 years old, and they involved patients with both chronic and acute rhinosinusitis.^48
-50

Butterbur (Petasites hybridus), a member of the sun-flower family, is purported to be effective in treating allergic rhinitis.^51,52 In CRS, evidence supporting its use is negligible.

Chinese traditional medicine. Ge Gen Tang is a traditional Chinese medicine that is made up of many herbs. It is prescribed by therapists for the treatment of gastrointestinal upset and upper respiratory tract infections.⁵³ A survey by Yen et al of CRS patients who took traditional Chinese medicines found that Ge Gen Tang use was common.⁵⁴ In another study, Chang et al used multiple in vitro cell lines to demon-strate that Ge Gen Tang exerts antiviral action against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).⁵⁵ The mechanism of this action is still not understood, but the expo-sure of RSV to Ge Gen Tang resulted in a significant reduction in TNFα expression. There are no clinical data to suggest that Ge Gen Tang has any efficacy in the treatment of CRS.

Bi Yuan Shu is an herb mixture that contains Mag-nolia liliiflora, Xanthium strumarium, and Astragalus membranaceus (Table 1). It has been evaluated clinically in patients recovering from functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) in combination with intranasal steroid and antibiotic therapy. In a study of 340 patients, a group randomized to Bi Yuan Shu combined with standard post-FESS therapy experienced significantly

less pain, discharge, and breathing difficulty than did those taking the standard treatment alone.⁵⁶ In patients with allergic rhinitis, Yang et al found that levels of IL-5, IFNγ, and COX-2 were significantly lowered when they were treated with a formula of similar Chinese herbs, suggesting a proposed mechanism for symptom reduction in CRS.⁵⁷

Homeopathy. Homeopathy in CRS involves treating both the underlying disease and its predominant symptoms with dilutions of precipitating, or “start-ing,” substances. There is much debate as to whether these dilutions actually contain any molecules of the original substance and hence whether any clinical effect is attributable to a placebo effect or study bias.⁵⁸ Starting substances may contain Sepia (cuttlefish ink), Pulsatilla (windflower plant), Lycopodium (club moss or wolf’s claw plant), or any number of other remedies.

Clinical studies that have evaluated homeopathic remedies in CRS are scarce. Nayak et al did conduct such an investigation—a prospective, observational study of 550 Asian Indian patients who had been di-agnosed with CRS and commenced on homeopathic treatment.⁵⁹ At 3 and 6 months of follow-up, significant improvements were observed in quality-of-life scores and radiologic evidence of CRS.⁵⁹ However, their study

did not include a control group, and the homeopathic treatments varied greatly among patients, which made the results difficult to interpret.

Sinfrontal is one homeopathic remedy that has been shown in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, pla-cebo-controlled trial to significantly reduce symptoms of acute maxillary sinusitis.⁶⁰ However, the exclusion criteria in that study included recurrent infections (three in the preceding 12 months) and CRS, so its efficacy in CRS was obviously not determined.

Discussion

Modern otolaryngologists and general practitioners must arm themselves with the knowledge of alterna-tive therapies that their patients may consider as part or all of their treatment for CRS. They must do so to educate their patients on the evidence surrounding their choices and the risks involved, to warn them of potential ineffective or even dangerous treatments that may lead to disastrous consequences.

It should be noted that significant bias (positive pub-lication bias) has been purported regarding studies of CAM therapies. This bias is likely reflected in the dis-cussion of the results in our review. Very few alternative therapies have been studied in true comparative clinical trials—or if they have, they remain unpublished. We have aimed to take this bias into our considerations and recommendations.

Most of the treatments discussed in this review are outside the realm of mainstream, and for the most part they lack sufficient evidence because of small study numbers, poor study design, or negative findings. However, some therapies, such as phonophoresis and therapeutic ultrasonography, do show some promise based on a growing body of positive evidence (Table 2). Similarly, positive clinical evidence has been found for the oral preparation Sinupret and the saline lavage additives baby shampoo, thyme honey, and bromelain.

Table 2.

Alternative therapies recommended for CRS.

Therapy	Indication in CRS	Level of evidence	Approximate cost in U.S. dollars*
1% baby shampoo in normal saline lavage	Postoperative setting for recalcitrant disease¹⁵ (not in the immediate postop period¹⁸)	Level III	$4.95/mo
Thyme honey in normal saline	Postoperative CRS with saline lavage and an intranasal steroid²³	Level III; reduction in subjective endoscopic scoring only; no symptom reduction	No commercial preparation exists
Phonophoresis and therapeutic ultrasonography	De novo CRS (with or without erythromycin phonophoresis)^30,34	Level III	Unknown
Phototherapy	De novo CRS³⁷ and postoperative CRS³⁸	Level VI	Unknown
Bromelain	De novo CRS⁶⁵ as an adjunct to standard antibiotic therapy	Level III; study combined patients with both acute and chronic sinusitis, making interpretation of efficacy in CRS alone difficult	$12 to $25/mo
Sinupret	De novo CRS^65,66	Level III	$20 to $30/mo
Bi Yuan Shu	Postoperative CRS as an adjunct Level III to antibiotics and saline lavage		$20 to $40/mo

*Cost is based on the average prices from three large online pharmacies (U.S.) for recommended dosages. The authors provide this information as an estimate only, as prices and availability may differ considerably.

Overall, based on the low quality of evidence and poor study design associated with most clinical trials of alternative therapies, we cannot recommend any of these therapies for widespread use in CRS. The fact that most of these treatments are associated with a relatively low risk profile makes them an alluring alternative to mainstream treatment with steroids and antibiotics for some CRS patients. We urge readers to consider the nature of the therapy, the quality of the evidence, and individual patient factors before advising patients on their use.

Where possible, tertiary care referral centers should enroll patients in well-designed and well-powered clini-cal trials to expand the evidence base for these therapies.

References

Frantz

. Advancing complementary and alternative medicine through social network analysis and agent-based modeling. Forsch Komplementmed 2012;19(Suppl 1):36–41.

Ernst

Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine: A systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 2000;78(2):252–7.

Rotenberg

Bertens

. Use of complementary and alternative medical therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis: A Canadian perspective. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery 2010;39(5): 586–93.

Krouse

. Patient use of traditional and complementary therapies in treating rhinosinusitis before consulting an otolaryngologist. Laryngoscope 1999;109(8):1223–7.

. Trends in the use of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States: 2002-2007. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2011;22(1):296–310.

Kooreman

Baars

. Patients whose GP knows complementary medicine tend to have lower costs and live longer. Eur J Health Econ 2012;13(6):769:76.

Sampson

Whitehurst

Street

. Do patients registered with CAM-trained GPs really use fewer health care resources and live longer? A response to Kooreman and Baars. Eur J Health Econ (2012). 13:[7]69-776. Eur J Health Econ 2013;14(4):703–5.

MacLennan

Myers

Taylor

. The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: Costs and beliefs in 2004. Med J Aust 2006;184(1):27–31.

Ernst

. The “Smallwood report”: Method or madness? Br J Gen Pract 2006;56(522):64–5.

10.

Fokkens

Lund

Mullol

, et al. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012. Rhinol Suppl 2012;23:3 p preceding table of contents, 1-298.

11.

Piromchai

Kasemsiri

Laohasiriwong

Thanaviratananich

. Chronic rhinosinusitis and emerging treatment options. Int J Gen Med 2013;6:453–64.

12.

Potter

Pawankar

. Indications, efficacy, and safety of intranasal corticosteroids in rhinosinusitis. World Allergy Organ J 2012;5(Suppl 1): S14–17.

13.

Kofonow

Adappa

. In vitro antimicrobial activity of SinuSurf™. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2012;74(4):179–84.

14.

Rosen

Palmer

O’Malley

Jr Cohen

. Surfactants in the management of rhinopathologies. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2013;27(3):177–80.

15.

Chiu

Palmer

Woodworth

, et al. Baby shampoo nasal irrigations for the symptomatic post-functional endoscopic sinus surgery patient. Am J Rhinol 2008;22(1):34–7.

16.

Chiu

Chen

Palmer

, et al. Safety evaluation of sinus surfactant solution on respiratory cilia function. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2011;1(4):280–3.

17.

Tan

Cooksley

Paramasivan

, et al. Safety evaluation of a sinus surfactant in an explant-based cytotoxicity assay. Laryngoscope 2014;124(2):369–72.

18.

Farag

Deal

McKinney

, et al. Single-blind randomized controlled trial of surfactant vs hypertonic saline irrigation after endoscopic endonasal surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013;3(4):276–80.

19.

Turnbull

Burke

, et al. Manuka-type honeys can eradicate biofilms produced by Staphylococcus aureus strains with different biofilm-forming abilities. PeerJ 2014;2: e326.

20.

Alandejani

Marsan

Ferris

, et al. Effectiveness of honey on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141(1):114–18.

21.

Paramasivan

Drilling

Jardeleza

, et al. Methylglyoxal-augmented manuka honey as a topical anti-Staphylococcus aureus biofilm agent: Safety and efficacy in an in vivo model. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014;4(3):187–95.

22.

Thamboo

Philpott

, et al. Single-blind study of manuka honey in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngology Head Neck Surg 2011;40(3):238–43.

23.

Hashemian

Baghbanian

Majd

, et al. The effect of thyme honey nasal spray on chronic rhinosinusitis: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272(6):1429–35.

24.

Uddman

Edvinsson

Ekblad

, et al. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP): Perivascular distribution and vasodilatory effects. Regul Pept 1986;15(1):1–23.

25.

Lacroix

. Chronic rhinosinusitis and neuropeptides. Swiss Med Wkly 2003;133(41-42):560–2.

26.

Lacroix

Buvelot

Polla

Lundberg

. Improvement of symptoms of non-allergic chronic rhinitis by local treatment with capsaicin. Clin Exp Allergy 1991;21(5):595–600.

27.

Méndez-Sanchez

González-Iglesias

Puente-González

, et al. Effects of manual therapy on craniofacial pain in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: A case series. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2012;35(1):64–72.

28.

Oka

Kamata

, et al. N-acetylcysteine suppresses TNF-induced NF-kappa B activation through inhibition of IkappaB kinases. FEBS Lett 2000;472(2-3):196–202.

29.

Bartley

Young

. Ultrasound as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. Med Hypotheses 2009;73(1):15–17.

30.

Bartley

Ansari

Naghdi

. Therapeutic ultrasound as a treatment modality for chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2014;16(3):398.

31.

Karosi

Sziklai

Csomor

. Low-frequency ultrasound for biofilm disruption in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: In vitro pilot study. Laryngoscope 2013;123(1):17–23.

32.

Ansari

Naghdi

Farhadi

. Physiotherapy for chronic rhinosinusitis: The use of continuous ultrasound. Int J Ther Rehab 2007;14(7):306–10.

33.

Ansari

Fathali

Naghdi

, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the effects of continuous and pulsed ultrasound in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Physiother Theory Pract 2012;28(2):85–94.

34.

Ansari

Naghdi

Fathali

, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing pulsed ultrasound and erythromycin phonophoresis in the treatment of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Physiother Theory Pract 2015;31(3):166–72.

35.

Krespi

Kizhner

Nistico

, et al. Laser disruption and killing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Am J Otolaryngol 2011;32(3):198–202.

36.

Wang

Liu

. Effect of low-level laser therapy on allergic asthma in rats. Lasers Med Sci 2014;29(3):1043–50.

37.

Naghdi

Ansari

Fathali

, et al. A pilot study into the effect of low-level laser therapy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Physiother Theory Pract 2013;29(8):596–603.

38.

Krespi

Kizhner

. Phototherapy for chronic rhinosinusitis. Lasers Surg Med 2011;43(3):187–91.

39.

Tai

Wang

Sun

, et al. Effect of needle puncture and electro-acupuncture on mucociliary clearance in anesthetized quails. BMC Complement Altern Med 2006;6:4.

40.

Kim

Choi

Lee

, et al. Acupuncture for improving chronic rhinosinusitis complicated with persistent allergic rhinitis. A prospective observational study. Forsch Komplementmed 2010;17(6):333–5.

41.

Sertel

Bergmann

Ratzlaff

, et al. Acupuncture for nasal congestion: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical pilot study. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009; 23(6): e23–8.

42.

Stavem

Røssberg

Larsson

. Health-related quality of life in a trial of acupuncture, sham acupuncture and conventional treatment for chronic sinusitis. BMC Res Notes 2008;1:37.

43.

Rössberg

Larsson

Birkeflet

, et al. Comparison of traditional Chinese acupuncture, minimal acupuncture at non-acupoints and conventional treatment for chronic sinusitis. Complement Ther Med 2005;13(1):4–10.

44.

Blanc

Trupin

Earnest

, et al. Alternative therapies among adults with a reported diagnosis of asthma or rhinosinusitis: Data from a population-based survey. Chest 2001;120(5):1461–7.

45.

Asher

Seidman

Snyderman

. Complementary and alternative medicine in otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2001;111(8): 1383–9.

46.

Burger

Torres

Warren

, et al. Echinacea-induced cytokine production by human macrophages. Int J Immuno pharmacol 1997;19(7):371–9.

47.

Chobotova

Vernallis

Majid

. Bromelain’s activity and potential as an anti-cancer agent: Current evidence and perspectives. Cancer Lett 2010;290(2):148–56.

48.

Ryan

. A double-blind clinical evaluation of bromelains in the treatment of acute sinusitis. Headache 1967;7(1):13–17.

49.

Seltzer

AP.

Adjunctive use of bromelains in sinusitis: A controlled Study. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon 1967;46(10):1281–8.

50.

Taub

SJ.

Use of bromelains in sinusitis: A double-blind clinical evaluation. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon 1967;46(3):361–2 passim.

51.

Gray

Haggart

Lee

, et al. Effects of butterbur treatment in intermittent allergic rhinitis: A placebo-controlled evaluation. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004;93(1):56–60.

52.

Schapowal A; Petasites Study Group. Randomised controlled trial of butterbur and cetirizine for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis. BMJ 2002;324(7330):144–6.

53.

Lee

Gim

Shim

, et al. The traditional herbal medicine, Ge-Gen-Tang, inhibits pacemaker potentials by nitric oxide/cGMP dependent ATP-sensitive K(+) channels in cultured interstitial cells of Cajal from mouse small intestine. J Ethnopharmacol 2015; 170:201–9.

54.

Yen

Sun

Lin

, et al. Adjunctive traditional Chinese medicine therapy for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: A population-based study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2015;5(3):240–6.

55.

Chang

Wang

Shieh

, et al. Ge-Gen-Tang has anti-viral activity against human respiratory syncytial virus in human respiratory tract cell lines. J Ethnopharmacol 2012;139(1):305–10.

56.

Liang

Wen

Zhen

. Multi-centre randomized controlled trial of Bi Yuan Shu liquid on patients with chronic nasal sinusitis or nasal polyp after endoscopic sinus surgery [in Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2004;6:377–81.

57.

Yang

Hong

. Decreased serum IgE level, decreased IFN-gamma and IL-5 but increased IL-10 production, and suppressed cyclooxygenase 2 mRNA expression in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis after treatment with a new mixed formula of Chinese herbs. Int Immunopharmacol 2001;1(6): 1173–82.

58.

Witt

Lüdtke

Willich

. Homeopathic treatment of patients with chronic sinusitis: A prospective observational study with 8 years follow-up. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 2009;9:7.

59.

Nayak

Singh

, et al. Homeopathy in chronic sinusitis: A prospective multi-centric observational study. Homeopathy 2012;101(2):84–91.

60.

Zabolotnyi

Kneis

Richardson

, et al. Efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Explore (NY) 2007;3(2):98–109.

61.

Roehm

Tessema

Brown

. The role of alternative medicine in rhinology. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2012; 20(1):73–81.

62.

Williamson

Driver

Baxter

, eds. Stockley’s Herbal Medicines Interactions. London, Chicago: Pharmaceutical Press; 2009.

63.

Panosetti

Pidoux

Lehmann

. Clinical trial with oral acetylcysteine in chronic sinusitis [abstract]. Eur J Respir Dis 1980;61(Suppl 111):159.

64.

Chkhaidze

Nemsadze

Gotsadze

, et al. Systemic inflammatory responses in patients with acute otitis media and the impact of treatment with Sinupret. Georgian Med News 2007;(151):40–4.

65.

Guo

Canter

Ernst

. Herbal medicines for the treatment of rhinosinusitis: A systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135(4):496–506.

66.

Richstein

Mann

. Treatment of chronic sinusitis with Sinupret [in German]. Ther Ggw 1980;119(9):1055–60.