search icon
Join IDSAJOIN IDSA >> Go to MyIDSAGO TO MYIDSA >>
  • Print
  • ShareThis
  • Text Size

"IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Children and Adults"

current
Published: Clinical Infectious Diseases ; 2012 ; : 72 -112

Abstract

This guideline addresses several issues in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), including (1) inability of existing clinical criteria to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral acute rhinosinusitis, leading to excessive and inappropriate antimicrobial therapy; (2) gaps in knowledge and quality evidence regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy for ABRS due to imprecise patient selection criteria; (3) changing prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of bacterial isolates associated with ABRS; and (4) impact of the use of conjugated vaccines for Streptococcus pneumoniae on the emergence of non-vaccine serotypes associated with ABRS. 

Full text

*Every 12 to 18 months following publication, IDSA reviews its guidelines to determine whether an update is required. This guideline was last reviewed and deemed current as of 05/2015.

Recommendations

INITIAL TREATMENT

I. Which Clinical Presentations Best Identify Patients With Acute Bacterial Versus Viral Rhinosinusitis?

Recommendations.

  1. The following clinical presentations (any of 3) are recommended for identifying patients with acute bacterial vs viral rhinosinusitis:

i. Onset with persistent symptoms or signs compatible with acute rhinosinusitis, lasting for ≥10 days without any evidence of clinical improvement (strong, low-moderate); ii. Onset with severe symptoms or signs of high fever (≥39°C [102°F]) and purulent nasal discharge or facial pain lasting for at least 3–4 consecutive days at the beginning of illness (strong, low-moderate); or iii. Onset with worsening symptoms or signs characterized by the new onset of fever, headache, or increase in nasal discharge following a typical viral upper respiratory infection (URI) that lasted 5–6 days and were initially improving (“double-sickening”) (strong, low-moderate).

II. When Should Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy Be Initiated in Patients With Signs and Symptoms Suggestive of ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. It is recommended that empiric antimicrobial therapy be initiated as soon as the clinical diagnosis of ABRS is established as defined in recommendation 1 (strong, moderate).

III. Should Amoxicillin Versus Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Be Used for Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy of ABRS in Children?

Recommendation.

  1. Amoxicillin-clavulanate rather than amoxicillin alone is recommended as empiric antimicrobial therapy for ABRS in children (strong, moderate).

IV. Should Amoxicillin Versus Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Be Used for Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy of ABRS in Adults?

Recommendation.

  1. Amoxicillin-clavulanate rather than amoxicillin alone is recommended as empiric antimicrobial therapy for ABRS in adults (weak, low).

V. When Is High-Dose Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Recommended During Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy for ABRS in Children or Adults?

Recommendation.

  1. “High-dose” (2 g orally twice daily or 90 mg/kg/day orally twice daily) amoxicillin-clavulanate is recommended for children and adults with ABRS from geographic regions with high endemic rates (≥10%) of invasive penicillin-nonsusceptible (PNS) S. pneumoniae, those with severe infection (eg, evidence of systemic toxicity with fever of 39°C [102°F] or higher, and threat of suppurative complications), attendance at daycare, age <2 or >65 years, recent hospitalization, antibiotic use within the past month, or who are immunocompromised (weak, moderate).

VI. Should a Respiratory Fluoroquinolone Versus a β-Lactam Agent Be Used as First-line Agents for the Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy of ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. A β-lactam agent (amoxicillin-clavulanate) rather than a respiratory fluoroquinolone is recommended for initial empiric antimicrobial therapy of ABRS (weak, moderate).

VII. Besides a Respiratory Fluoroquinolone, Should a Macrolide, Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole, Doxycycline, or a Second- or Third-Generation Oral Cephalosporin Be Used as Second-line Therapy for ABRS in Children or Adults?

Recommendations.

  1. Macrolides (clarithromycin and azithromycin) are not recommended for empiric therapy due to high rates of resistance among S. pneumoniae (∼30%) (strong, moderate).
  2. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) is not recommended for empiric therapy because of high rates of resistance among both S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae (∼30%–40%) (strong, moderate).
  3. Doxycycline may be used as an alternative regimen to amoxicillin-clavulanate for initial empiric antimicrobial therapy of ABRS in adults because it remains highly active against respiratory pathogens and has excellent pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) properties (weak, low).
  4. Second-and third-generation oral cephalosporins are no longer recommended for empiric monotherapy of ABRS due to variable rates of resistance among S. pneumoniae. Combination therapy with a third-generation oral cephalosporin (cefixime or cefpodoxime) plus clindamycin may be used as second-line therapy for children with non–type I penicillin allergy or from geographic regions with high endemic rates of PNS S. pneumoniae (weak, moderate).

VIII. Which Antimicrobial Regimens Are Recommended for the Empiric Treatment of ABRS in Adults and Children With a History of Penicillin Allergy?

Recommendations.

  1. Either doxycycline (not suitable for children) or a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) is recommended as an alternative agent for empiric antimicrobial therapy in adults who are allergic to penicillin (strong, moderate).
  2. Levofloxacin is recommended for children with a history of type I hypersensitivity to penicillin; combination therapy with clindamycin plus a third-generation oral cephalosporin (cefixime or cefpodoxime) is recommended in children with a history of non–type I hypersensitivity to penicillin (weak, low).

IX. Should Coverage for Staphylococcus aureus (Especially Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus) Be Provided Routinely During Initial Empiric Therapy of ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. Although S. aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]) is a potential pathogen in ABRS, on the basis of current data, routine antimicrobial coverage for S. aureus or MRSA during initial empiric therapy of ABRS is not recommended (strong, moderate).

X. Should Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy for ABRS Be Administered for 5–7 Days Versus 10–14 Days?

Recommendations.

  1. The recommended duration of therapy for uncomplicated ABRS in adults is 5–7 days (weak, low-moderate).
  2. In children with ABRS, the longer treatment duration of 10–14 days is still recommended (weak, low-moderate).

XI. Is Saline Irrigation of the Nasal Sinuses of Benefit as Adjunctive Therapy in Patients With ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. Intranasal saline irrigation with either physiologic or hypertonic saline is recommended as an adjunctive treatment in adults with ABRS (weak, low-moderate).

XII. Are Intranasal Corticosteroids Recommended as an Adjunct to Antimicrobial Therapy in Patients With ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are recommended as an adjunct to antibiotics in the empiric treatment of ABRS, primarily in patients with a history of allergic rhinitis (weak, moderate).

XIII. Should Topical or Oral Decongestants or Antihistamines Be Used as Adjunctive Therapy in Patients With ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. Neither topical nor oral decongestants and/or antihistamines are recommended as adjunctive treatment in patients with ABRS (strong, low-moderate).

NONRESPONSIVE PATIENT

XIV. How Long Should Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy in the Absence of Clinical Improvement Be Continued Before Considering Alternative Management Strategies?

Recommendation.

  1. An alternative management strategy is recommended if symptoms worsen after 48–72 hours of initial empiric antimicrobial therapy or fail to improve despite 3–5 days of initial empiric antimicrobial therapy (strong, moderate).

XV. What Is the Recommended Management Strategy in Patients Who Clinically Worsen Despite 72 Hours or Fail to Improve After 3–5 Days of Initial Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy With a First-line Regimen?

Recommendation.

  1. An algorithm for managing patients who fail to respond to initial empiric antimicrobial therapy is shown in Figure 1. Patients who clinically worsen despite 72 hours or fail to improve after 3–5 days of empiric antimicrobial therapy with a first-line agent should be evaluated for the possibility of resistant pathogens, a noninfectious etiology, structural abnormality, or other causes for treatment failure (strong, low).

XVI. In Managing the Patient With ABRS Who Has Failed to Respond to Empiric Treatment With Both First-line and Second-line Agents, It Is Important to Obtain Cultures to Document Whether There Is Persistent Bacterial Infection and Whether Resistant Pathogens Are Present. In Such Patients, Should Cultures Be Obtained by Sinus Puncture or Endoscopy, or Are Cultures of Nasopharyngeal Swabs Sufficient?

Recommendations.

  1. It is recommended that cultures be obtained by direct sinus aspiration rather than by nasopharyngeal swab in patients with suspected sinus infection who have failed to respond to empiric antimicrobial therapy (strong, moderate).
  2. Endoscopically guided cultures of the middle meatus may be considered as an alternative in adults, but their reliability in children has not been established (weak, moderate).
  3. Nasopharyngeal cultures are unreliable and are not recommended for the microbiologic diagnosis of ABRS (strong, high).

XVII. Which Imaging Technique Is Most Useful for Patients With Severe ABRS Who Are Suspected to Have Suppurative Complications Such as Orbital or Intracranial Extension of Infection?

Recommendation.

  1. In patients with ABRS suspected to have suppurative complications, axial and coronal views of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) rather than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended to localize the infection and to guide further treatment (weak, low).

XVIII. When Is Referral to a Specialist Indicated in a Patient With Presumed ABRS?

Recommendation.

  1. Patients who are seriously ill and immunocompromised, continue to deteriorate clinically despite extended courses of antimicrobial therapy, or have recurrent bouts of acute rhinosinusitis with clearing between episodes should be referred to a specialist (such as an otolaryngologist, infectious disease specialist, or allergist) for consultation. As this is a “good clinical practice” statement rather than a recommendation, it is not further graded.

Additional Resources

Full text 

Guideline Central

| HIVMA | Contact Us

© Copyright IDSA 2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America

Full Site Mobile Site