Allergic Fungal Sinusitis
No Results
No Results
processing….
Over the past few decades, allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) has become increasingly defined. [1] Historically mistaken for a paranasal sinus tumor, allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) now is believed to be an allergic reaction to aerosolized environmental fungi, usually of the dematiaceous species, in an immunocompetent host. This is in contrast to invasive fungal infections that affect immunocompromised hosts, such as patients with diabetes mellitus and patients with AIDS. Most patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) have a history of allergic rhinitis, and the exact timing of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) development can be difficult to discern. Thick fungal debris and mucin, as shown below, are developed in the sinus cavities and must be surgically removed so that the inciting allergen is no longer present. Recurrence is not uncommon once the disease is removed, but anti-inflammatory medical therapy and immunotherapy are being employed to help prevent recurrence. [2]
Laboratory studies
Total immunoglobulin E (IgE) values generally are elevated in allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), often to more than 1000 U/mL (normal values are < 50 U/mL), and have been proposed as a useful indicator of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) clinical activity.
Patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) generally demonstrate positive skin tests and in vitro radioallergosorbent test (RAST) responses to fungal and nonfungal antigens. Preliminary information suggests that methods of quantitative skin testing (in vivo) may provide even greater sensitivity ratings than RAST in patients with the disease.
Gell and Coombs type I hypersensitivity in patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) can be demonstrated by elevation of serum total and fungal-specific IgE and by positive skin test results for fungal and nonfungal antigens. However, this reaction does not appear to be fungal specific.
CT scanning
Accumulation of allergic fungal mucin eventually leads to the increasingly well-recognized radiographic findings characteristic of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Heterogeneous areas of signal intensity within paranasal sinuses filled with allergic fungal mucin frequently are identified on computed tomography (CT) scans.
Expansion, remodeling, or thinning of involved sinus walls is common in allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) and is thought to be caused by the expansile nature of the accumulating mucin. Areas of high attenuation are found within the expanded paranasal sinuses in all patients. Similar radiographic findings can be caused by rare osteoid/chondroid matrix-producing sinonasal sarcomas or meningiomas.
MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also can provide information useful in preoperative identification of allergic fungal mucin, but it usually is not necessary when making the diagnosis unless the disease has extended into the intracranial cavity or confusion exists with the diagnosis.
Histologic findings
Allergic fungal mucin normally is first encountered at surgery. Therefore, recognition of its presence is the initial step in establishing an accurate diagnosis of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Examination of mucosa and polyps obtained from involved paranasal sinuses reveals findings consistent with the inflammation of a chronic inflammatory process and should be performed to exclude fungal invasion.
On the basis of a postulated schema of the pathophysiology of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), a variety of treatment plans addressing its multiple contributing factors has emerged. Medical control of the disease has made use of various combinations of antifungal medications, corticosteroids, and immunotherapy, with varying degrees of disease control.
The invariable components of combination therapy still are surgical removal of the inciting fungal allergic mucin and marsupialization of the involved sinuses. For this reason, surgery has played an important role in the management of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) since its earliest reports.
Increased acceptance of specific immunologic hypersensitivity as the cause of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) has led to changes in its management. These changes have involved the medical and surgical arms of therapy. While systemic use of antifungal medications largely has been replaced by immunomodulation, radical surgery for allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) has given way to more conservative, tissue-sparing approaches.
Several decades ago, fungal disease in the nose and paranasal sinuses represented an invasive deadly disease. Management consisted of extensive surgical debridement followed by therapy with systemic and topical antifungal agents. Early on, Aspergillus, a fungus known to cause invasive disease in the sinuses, was the only fungus recovered from the paranasal sinuses in patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) because of the limitation of culture techniques and the lack of knowledge that dematiaceous fungi caused disease in the paranasal sinuses. Therefore, the disease was treated aggressively.
In 1976, Safirstein noted that the combination of polyposis, crust formation, and sinus cultures yielding Aspergillus was similar to the constellation of findings observed in allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), a benign allergic process. [3] Safirstein’s description was duplicated and expanded on by reports of allergic aspergillosis of the paranasal sinuses and allergic Aspergillus sinusitis. In the late 1980s, the disease was more widely accepted as a benign fungal process and often confused with a paranasal sinus tumor on imaging studies because allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) creates expansion of affected sinus cavities.
In 1989, Robson et al introduced the term allergic fungal sinusitis following reports that this condition could be caused by a number of different fungi, not only Aspergillus. [4] Although the disease is becoming more recognized, confusion remains regarding diagnosis and treatment.
No consensus exists among rhinologists concerning diagnostic criteria for allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Several authors have made observations.
In 1991, Allphin and colleagues described certain features that they felt differentiated allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) from other forms of fungal sinusitis, including radiographic presence of multiple opacified paranasal sinuses, characteristic histologic findings of allergic mucin, and laboratory evidence of allergy.
In 1993, Loury and Schaefer proposed multiple diagnostic criteria, including eosinophilia, immediate skin reactivity or serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to fungal antigen, elevated total immunoglobulin E (IgE) level, nasal mucosal edema or polyposis, histopathologic findings of allergic mucin containing noninvasive fungal hyphae, and characteristic CT or MRI findings. [5]
In 1994, in reporting the Mayo Clinic experience, Cody et al simplified the diagnostic criteria to include only characteristic allergic mucin and either noninvasive fungal hyphae within the collected mucin or positive fungal cultures. [6]
In 1994, Bent and Kuhn described what probably are the most widely accepted criteria for diagnosis. On the basis of the analysis of 15 cases, 5 common characteristics were observed, including Gell and Coombs type I (IgE-mediated) hypersensitivity to fungi, nasal polyposis, characteristic radiographic findings, eosinophilic mucin without fungal invasion into sinus tissue, and positive fungal stain of sinus contents removed at the time of surgery. [7]
In 1997, deShazo proposed a similar set of 5 criteria, including radiographic evidence of sinusitis, presence of allergic mucin (identified grossly or histopathologically), positive fungal stain or culture from the sinus at the time of surgery, absence of contributory factors (eg, diabetes mellitus, immunodeficiencies), and absence of fungal invasion. [8]
A positive fungal culture does not confirm the diagnosis of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), nor does a negative culture exclude it. For example, fungi may proliferate as saprophytic growth in diseased sinuses. Furthermore, mycology laboratories vary in capability, and specimen handling significantly influences the rate of positive fungal cultures in a clinical setting. Allergic mucin remains the most reliable indicator of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Because nasal polyposis and fungal disease in the sinuses are not unique to allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), other mycotic diseases in the differential diagnosis must be defined and include the following:
Invasive fungal sinusitis: This condition typically is encountered in patients who are immunocompromised or have diabetes mellitus and is characterized by angioinvasive fungal penetration of tissue. Hypesthesia, local pain, and intranasal necrosis (in an immunocompromised person) strongly suggest invasive fungal sinusitis and help to differentiate this disease from allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS).
Saprophytic fungal growth: This growth may be found in one or more paranasal sinus cavities of patients who have chronic suppurative rhinosinusitis. Similar growth may occur within nasal debris of patients who have undergone aggressive sinonasal surgery or those who have rhinitis sicca. Although fungal cultures may be positive, the absence of gross and histiologic findings of allergic mucin and the lack of clinical manifestations of invasive fungal sinusitis suggest saprophytic fungal growth.
Mycetoma, aspergilloma, or fungus ball of the sinuses: This clinical entity differs from allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) in presentation. Rather than involving multiple sinuses, a fungus ball typically involves a single sinus, most often the maxillary antrum or sphenoid. Patients affected by this condition are not necessarily allergic and generally do not exhibit nasal polyps. On histologic examination, the material removed from the sinuses demonstrates only fungal hyphae without eosinophils. Surgery in such patients generally is curative.
Eosinophilic mucin sinusitis: Pansinusitis, polyposis, and mucin that is clinically indistinguishable from that of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) are characteristic. However, examination of mucin reveals no fungal hyphae. Allergy is not as constant a feature in this condition as it is in allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), but asthma is observed more frequently. Ferguson has suggested that this condition may represent a variant of the Samter triad.
Approximately 5-10% of patients affected by chronic rhinosinusitis actually carry a diagnosis of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Atopy is characteristic of the disease; approximately two thirds of patients report a history of allergic rhinitis, and 90% of patients demonstrate elevated specific IgE to one or more fungal antigens. Approximately 50% of patients in a series by Manning et al had asthma. No linkage to aspirin sensitivity has been established.
Incidence of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) appears to be impacted by geographic factors. Review of world literature reveals that most sites reporting cases of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) are located in temperate regions of relatively high humidity. However, incidence of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) varied remarkably based on the location of reporting sites. Allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) in the United States was encountered most commonly within the Mississippi basin, the Southeast, and the Southwest. The reason for this geographic difference remains unexplained.
Allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) is most common among adolescents and young adults; the mean age at diagnosis is 21.9 years. The male-to-female (M/F) ratio of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) differs slightly between published reports but is believed to be equal when all ages are evaluated together. A literature review of 98 cases in the 1980s and early 1990s from 29 published journal articles reported an equal M/F incidence. A review by the author and colleagues of 151 patients at the University of Texas (UT) at Southwestern also revealed an equal M/F ratio, with ages ranging from 5-75 years. [9]
However, the M/F ratio may be age dependent and different in children and adults. In the review of patients at UT Southwestern, in children, males dominated (M/F ratio 2.1:1; average age, 13 y), and in adults, females dominated (M/F ratio 1:1.4; average age, 36 y). When evaluating the average ages and sex ratios of other studies, series with younger average ages are more likely to have a male predominance. The average ages in the male-dominated series were 25 and 27 years, while the average age in the female-dominated series was 33 years. The only other pediatric series consisted of 10 patients and had an M/F ratio of 1.5:1, with a mean age of 13.6 years. Interestingly, when 2 series of patients from a single institution were reviewed over time, an early study had an M/F ratio of 1.5:1, with an age range of 13-51 years (average age, 27.5 y), and a later review had an M/F ratio of 1:1.4, with an age range of 13-69 years (no average age given).
Most rhinologists believe that allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) is an allergic reaction to fungi, in which fungal debris, allergic mucin, and nasal polyposes are formed in the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. The causative fungi in allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) are usually dematiaceous fungi, consisting of the genera Bipolaris, Curvularia, Exserohilum, Alternaria, Drechslera, Helminthosporium, and Fusarium, with a small component of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) caused by Aspergillus. In a 1996 review of English literature performed by Manning, 263 cases of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) were identified, of which 168 cases yielded positive fungal cultures. Of these 168 positive cultures, 87% were from the dematiaceous genera, while only 13% yielded Aspergillus.
The largest reported single institutional experience to date is at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. The fungi recovered from the paranasal sinuses in that evaluation by the author and colleagues revealed that Bipolaris, followed by Curvularia, is the most common pathogen present, seen with similar incidence in adults and children, see Table 1 below. Most large reviews agree, indicating that Bipolaris and Curvularia species are the most common fungi recovered.
When geographic location is specifically reviewed, the further west and inland the series, the more likely that Bipolaris species dominated the fungi recovered. When the series was performed in the Southeast, Curvularia species were more likely to be recovered. Interestingly, in the UT Southwestern experience, Aspergillus was recovered in 13% of adults but in no children. A report from India found only Aspergillus species identified in all 11 patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) in whom fungus was recovered.
Table 1. Causative Fungus Identified at UT Southwestern Medical Center (Open Table in a new window)
Fungus
Children (n=44)
Adults (n=107)
Bipolaris
21 (66%, 21/32)
40 (57%, 40/70)
Curvularia
7 (22%, 7/32)
12 (17%, 12/70)
Exserohilum
2
2
Alternaria
1
3
Aspergillus (niger/flavus)
0
9 (13%)
Acremonium
0
1
Chrysosporium
0
1
Helminthosporium
0
1
No Growth
2
21
No Data
12
16
Combination
1 Bipolaris/Curvularia
1 Aspergillus/Acremonium
Controversy has existed over whether the disease is infectious or allergic. Manning and Holman objectively addressed this controversy in 2 separate studies. [10] In the first study, 8 patients with culture-positive Bipolaris allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) were prospectively compared with 10 control subjects who did not have allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Both groups were evaluated with (1) radioallergosorbent test (RAST) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) inhibition to Bipolaris -specific IgE and IgG antibodies and (2) skin testing with Bipolaris antigen. All 8 patients had positive skin test reactions to Bipolaris antigen and positive RAST and ELISA inhibition to Bipolaris -specific IgE and IgG. Eight of the 10 control subjects had negative results on both skin and serologic testing, implicating the importance of allergy to fungal antigens (both in vivo and in vitro) in the pathophysiology of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS).
In a complementary study, sinus mucosal specimens from 14 patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) were compared with those from 10 control subjects who did not have allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Immunohistochemical analysis for eosinophilic mediators (major basic protein and eosinophilic-derived neurotoxin) and a neutrophil-derived mediator (neutrophil elastase) was performed to assess the underlying nature of inflammation. Eosinophilic-derived mediators were much more common (P< 0.00001) than neutrophil-derived mediators in the allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) group, whereas significant differences were not observed in the control group. The predominance of eosinophilic-derived mediators further supports the association between noninfectious (ie, allergic) inflammation and allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS).
The concept of eosinophilic activation associated with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) was further emphasized by Feger et al, who studied eosinophilic cationic protein levels in the serum and mucin of patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). No differences in serum eosinophilic cationic protein were detected between patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) and control subjects, but eosinophilic cationic protein levels were significantly higher in the mucin of patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS); P < 0.01).
Studies such as those by Manning et al and Feger et al offer strong immunologic and histologic data to support the argument that allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) represents an immunologically mediated disorder rather than a point on the spectrum of infectious fungal disease. [11]
A study by Lu-Myers et al found that socioeconomic factors differed between patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and those with chronic rhinosinusitis, with the latter tending to be white and older, with a higher income and greater access to primary care. The study, which involved a total of 186 patients (93 patients in each group), also found that patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis tended to have greater quantitative serum IgE levels and higher Lund-Mackay scale scores than did patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. [12]
A study by Mostafa et al found serum levels of vitamin D3 to be significantly lower in patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis than in controls. The investigators suggest that the agent may serve as a prophylactic against the disease. The study included 25 patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and 19 controls. [13]
Currently, the pathophysiology of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) is postulated to be similar to that of allergic bronchopulmonary fungal disease (a term replacing bronchopulmonary aspergillosis). Manning and colleagues have suggested that several interrelated factors and events lead to the development and perpetuation of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). First, an atopic host is exposed to fungi, theoretically via normal nasal respiration, which provides the initial antigenic stimulus. An initial inflammatory response ensues as the result of both a Gell and Coombs type I (IgE-mediated) and type III (immune complex–mediated) reaction, causing subsequent tissue edema. The resulting obstruction of sinus ostia, which may be accentuated by anatomic factors such as septal deviation or turbinate hypertrophy, results in stasis within the sinuses. This creates an ideal environment for further proliferation of the fungus, thus increasing the antigenic exposure to which the host is allergic.
At some point, the cycle becomes self-perpetuating, resulting in the eventual product of this process, allergic mucin, the material that fills the involved sinuses of patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Accumulation of this debris obstructs the involved sinuses and propagates the process.
The production of this allergic mucin and its eventual clinical, histologic, and radiographic characteristics are unique to allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) and serve as a hallmark of the disease. Grossly, allergic fungal mucin is thick, tenacious, and highly viscous. Its color may vary from light tan to brown or dark green, as depicted in the images below. Its characteristic gross appearance has resulted in the use of such descriptive terms as peanut butter and axle grease when referring to allergic fungal mucin.
In a study of 74 patients, White et al indicated that in cases of allergic fungal sinusitis, younger patients and African Americans are more likely to suffer bony erosion, suggesting that these individuals have a more severe inflammatory response in the disease. [14]
Patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) normally present with signs and symptoms of nasal airway obstruction, allergic rhinitis, or chronic sinusitis that includes nasal congestion, purulent rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, or headaches. Often, presentation of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) is subtle. Patients typically complain of gradual nasal airway obstruction and production of semi-solid nasal crusts that, upon inquiry, match the gross description of allergic fungal mucin. Development of nasal airway obstruction may have been so gradual that the patient is unaware of its presence. Because of the slow progression of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), if facial dysmorphia is present, its progression often is so slow that it is unrecognized by the patient and family members. Pain is uncommon among patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) and suggests the concomitant presence of a bacterial rhinosinusitis.
Patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) are atopic, but generally their symptoms have been unresponsive to antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and prior immunotherapy. Use of systemic corticosteroids may produce some relief of symptoms, but relapse is typical following completion of therapy. In contrast to patients who have invasive fungal sinusitis, patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) always are immunocompetent.
The range of physical findings on examination is typically broad, from nasal airway obstruction resulting from intranasal inflammation and polyposis, as depicted in the 1st image below, to gross facial disfigurement and orbital or ocular abnormalities. The author and colleagues reported that facial dysmorphism, consisting of proptosis, as depicted in the 2nd image below, telecanthus, and malar flattening, more often was seen in children than in adults (42% vs 10%) in their series of 151 patients, including 107 adults aged 18 years or older and 44 children aged 17 years or younger, as depicted in Table 2 below.
Usually, when proptosis was present in patients in this study, telecanthus and malar flattening could be identified, as depicted in the first image above, depending on the amount of proptosis. Because development of proptosis usually occurs over long periods, no diplopia or visual loss generally is seen.
However, diplopia and visual loss were encountered in a study by Alaraj et al. The retrospective study, of 100 patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), reported that 34 individuals had associated eye problems. Proptosis was the most common ophthalmic presentation, occurring in 21 patients (61.8%). The next most frequent were epiphora (5 patients, 14.7%), visual loss (4 patients, 11.8%), diplopia (3 patients, 8.8%), and dystopia (1 patient, 2.9%). Intraorbital extension existed in 17.6% of patients. [15]
At times, extension of allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) into adjacent anatomic spaces can produce a dramatic clinical presentation, such as visual loss. Visual loss from allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) caused by compression of the ophthalmic nerve, described by Marple et al in 3 of 82 patients he encountered, was reversible with immediate surgical removal of fungal disease. [16] Return occurred over weeks to months.
A study by Gupta et al indicated that allergic fungal rhinosinusitis tends to be more severe when granulomas are present. The study involved 57 patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, including nine patients with granulomas, with the investigators finding that those with granulomas had a tendency toward orbital and skull base erosion, as well as telecanthus, diplopia, exophthalmos, and facial pain. [17]
Table 2. Facial Asymmetry Characteristics (Open Table in a new window)
Condition
Children
Adults
Presence of facial asymmetry (44 children, 107 adults studied)
15/36 (42%) (8 unknown)*
10/103 (10%) (4 unknown)*
Proptosis (obvious) with telecanthus, with/without malar flattening
8/15
7/10
Proptosis (measured, not obvious, £2 mm)
0/15
2/10
Telecanthus alone
6/15
1/10
Malar flattening alone
1/15
0/10
*Not all initial clinical records mention the presence or absence of facial asymmetry or vision problems.
All patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS) should undergo surgical debridement of their sinuses. The inciting fungal antigen must be removed for immunotherapy to be successful. Any recurrent disease also should be surgically removed.
Relevant anatomy is the same as in any endoscopic sinus surgery procedure. Often, anatomy is distorted because of expansion of the sinuses secondary to the disease process. The lateral nasal wall is pushed medially, obliterating the nasal cavity on the affected side, and the inferior and middle turbinates are pushed inferomedially, as depicted in the 1st two images below. If the ethmoid sinuses are involved, the roof often is expanded superiorly into the anterior cranial fossa, and the lateral wall is expanded into the orbit, as depicted in the last image below.
No specific contraindications exist to surgical removal of fungal debris and polyps in patients with allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). Normally, these patients are healthy immunocompetent individuals.
Glass D, Amedee RG. Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis: a review. Ochsner J. 2011 Fall. 11(3):271-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Montone KT. Pathology of Fungal Rhinosinusitis: A Review. Head Neck Pathol. 2016 Mar. 10 (1):40-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Safirstein BH. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with obstruction of the upper respiratory tract. Chest. 1976 Dec. 70(6):788-90. [Medline].
Robson JM, Hogan PG, Benn RA, et al. Allergic fungal sinusitis presenting as a paranasal sinus tumour. Aust N Z J Med. 1989 Aug. 19(4):351-3. [Medline].
Loury MC, Leopold DA, Schaefer SD. Allergic Aspergillus sinusitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993 Sep. 119(9):1042-3. [Medline].
Cody DT 2nd, Neel HB 3rd, Ferreiro JA, et al. Allergic fungal sinusitis: the Mayo Clinic experience. Laryngoscope. 1994 Sep. 104(9):1074-9. [Medline].
Bent JP 3rd, Kuhn FA. Allergic fungal sinusitis/polyposis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 1996 Sep-Oct. 17(5):259-68. [Medline].
Deshpande RB, Shukla A, Kirtane MV. Allergic fungal sinusitis: incidence and clinical and pathological features of seven cases. J Assoc Physicians India. 1995 Feb. 43(2):98-100. [Medline].
McClay JE, Marple B, Kapadia L, et al. Clinical presentation of allergic fungal sinusitis in children. Laryngoscope. 2002 Mar. 112(3):565-9. [Medline].
Manning SC, Holman M. Further evidence for allergic pathophysiology in allergic fungal sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 1998 Oct. 108(10):1485-96. [Medline].
Feger TA, Rupp NT, Kuhn FA, et al. Local and systemic eosinophil activation in allergic fungal sinusitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997 Sep. 79(3):221-5. [Medline].
Lu-Myers Y, Deal AM, Miller JD, et al. Comparison of Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Apr 27. [Medline].
Mostafa Bel-D, Taha MS, Abdel Hamid T, Omran A, Lotfi N. Evaluation of vitamin D levels in allergic fungal sinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016 Feb. 6 (2):185-90. [Medline].
White LC, Jang DW, Yelvertan JC, Kountakis SE. Bony erosion patterns in patients with allergic fungal sinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015 Jul-Aug. 29 (4):243-5. [Medline].
Alaraj AM, Al-Faky YH, Alsuhaibani AH. Ophthalmic Manifestations of Allergic Fungal Sinusitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jan 30. [Medline].
Marple BF, Gibbs SR, Newcomer MT, Mabry RL. Allergic fungal sinusitis-induced visual loss. Am J Rhinol. 1999 May-Jun. 13(3):191-5. [Medline].
Gupta R, Gupta AK, Patro SK, et al. Allergic fungal rhino sinusitis with granulomas: A new entity?. Med Mycol. 2015 May 30. [Medline].
Reddy CE, Gupta AK, Singh P, Mann SB. Imaging of granulomatous and chronic invasive fungal sinusitis: comparison with allergic fungal sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Aug. 143(2):294-300. [Medline].
Zinreich SJ, Kennedy DW, Malat J, et al. Fungal sinusitis: diagnosis with CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 1988 Nov. 169(2):439-44. [Medline].
Illing EA, Dunlap Q, Woodworth BA. Outcomes of pressure-induced cranial neuropathies from allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Mar. 152 (3):541-5. [Medline].
Millar J, Lamb D. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis of the maxillary sinuses. Thorax. 1981. 36:710.
Bent JP 3rd, Kuhn FA. Antifungal activity against allergic fungal sinusitis organisms. Laryngoscope. 1996 Nov. 106(11):1331-4. [Medline].
Schubert MS, Goetz DW. Evaluation and treatment of allergic fungal sinusitis. I. Demographics and diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Sep. 102(3):387-94. [Medline].
Schubert MS, Goetz DW. Evaluation and treatment of allergic fungal sinusitis. II. Treatment and follow-up. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Sep. 102(3):395-402. [Medline].
Denning DW, Van Wye JE, Lewiston NJ, et al. Adjunctive therapy of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with itraconazole. Chest. 1991 Sep. 100(3):813-9. [Medline].
Masterson L, Egro FM, Bewick J, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes after sinus surgery in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis versus nonfungal chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2016 Mar-Apr. 30 (2):e30-5. [Medline].
Gan EC, Thamboo A, Rudmik L, Hwang PH, Ferguson BJ, Javer AR. Medical management of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis following endoscopic sinus surgery: an evidence-based review and recommendations. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2014 Sep. 4 (9):702-15. [Medline].
Tsimikas S, Hollingsworth HM, Nash G. Aspergillus brain abscess complicating allergic Aspergillus sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994 Aug. 94(2 Pt 1):264-7. [Medline].
Holbrook JF, Eastwood JD, Kilani RK. Intracranial Abscess as a Complication of Allergic Fungal Sinusitis. J Neuroimaging. 2011 Dec 30. [Medline].
Miller JD, Deal AM, McKinney KA, et al. Markers of disease severity and socioeconomic factors in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2014 Apr. 4(4):272-9. [Medline].
AlQahtani A, Alshaikh N, Alzarei A, et al. Contralateral sinus involvement of surgically treated unilateral allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Aug. 274 (8):3097-101. [Medline].
Fungus
Children (n=44)
Adults (n=107)
Bipolaris
21 (66%, 21/32)
40 (57%, 40/70)
Curvularia
7 (22%, 7/32)
12 (17%, 12/70)
Exserohilum
2
2
Alternaria
1
3
Aspergillus (niger/flavus)
0
9 (13%)
Acremonium
0
1
Chrysosporium
0
1
Helminthosporium
0
1
No Growth
2
21
No Data
12
16
Combination
1 Bipolaris/Curvularia
1 Aspergillus/Acremonium
Condition
Children
Adults
Presence of facial asymmetry (44 children, 107 adults studied)
15/36 (42%) (8 unknown)*
10/103 (10%) (4 unknown)*
Proptosis (obvious) with telecanthus, with/without malar flattening
8/15
7/10
Proptosis (measured, not obvious, £2 mm)
0/15
2/10
Telecanthus alone
6/15
1/10
Malar flattening alone
1/15
0/10
*Not all initial clinical records mention the presence or absence of facial asymmetry or vision problems.
Site
Children (n=10) (25%, 10/40)
Adults (n=23) (23%, 23/100)
Intracranial anterior cranial fossa
3
9
Middle cranial fossa
1
4
Posterior cranial fossa
2
2
Orbit
6
17
Pterygopalatine fossa
1
3
Nasopharynx
3
2
*Multiple sites were affected in some patients.
Protocol
1. After successful surgical exenteration of sinuses and confirmation of diagnosis, perform allergy evaluation and testing (RAST or quantitative skin test) for typical panel of nonfungal antigens appropriate for the area. Test (RAST or quantitative skin test) for all relevant molds (fungi) available. Discuss treatment protocol with the patient and obtain informed consent.
2. Instruct the patient in avoidance measures for molds. Adjust pharmacotherapy as necessary.
3. Prepare a vial of all positive nonfungal antigens and a second vial of all positive fungal antigens. Perform a vial test with each.
4. Administer immunotherapy weekly, with dosage advancement as tolerated, placing 1 injection from each vial in a different arm. This allows for accurate recognition of the cause of any local reactions noted.
5. Observe the patient regularly and adjust dosage as necessary if local reactions or adverse changes in nasal signs/symptoms occur. Regularly examine the patient with endoscopy to detect reaccumulation of allergic mucin or reformation of polyps and to ensure that cleaning, medical management, etc, are carried out.
6. As dosage advancement permits (generally by second vial), antigens may be combined into 1 vial; continue for a 3- to 5-year regimen according to standard practice.
Reproduced from Mabry RL, 1998.
Antigens From Fungal Genera in Approximate Relative Order of Local (Dallas, TX) Importance
Helminthosporium
Alternaria
Stemphyllium
Curvularia
Aspergillus
Epicoccum
Fusarium
Mucor
Pullularia
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Reproduced from Mabry RL, 1998.
John E McClay, MD Associate Professor of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Dallas, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
John E McClay, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Bradley Marple, MD Vice Chairman, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Bradley Marple, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Medical Association, American Rhinologic Society, Texas Medical Association, Triological Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference
Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.
Stephen G Batuello, MD Consulting Staff, Colorado ENT Specialists
Stephen G Batuello, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Association for Physician Leadership, American Medical Association, Colorado Medical Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA Professor of Otolaryngology, Dentistry, and Engineering, University of Colorado School of Medicine
Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Head and Neck Society
Disclosure: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Cerescan;RxRevu;Cliexa;Preacute Population Health Management;The Physicians Edge<br/>Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: The Physicians Edge, Cliexa<br/> Received stock from RxRevu; Received ownership interest from Cerescan for consulting; for: Rxblockchain;Bridge Health.
Lanny Garth Close, MD Chair, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
Lanny Garth Close, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Head and Neck Society, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American College of Physicians, American Laryngological Association, New York Academy of Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Allergic Fungal Sinusitis
Research & References of Allergic Fungal Sinusitis|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments