Reported trial results for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

63 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT04157335 · results posted 19 February 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04157335) enrolled 287 adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps — a condition where growths form inside the nose and sinuses, causing blockage and other symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either benralizumab (144 people) or a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment, 143 people) during a blinded phase lasting about 56 weeks, where neither participants nor their doctors knew who received which. The trial was primarily measuring two things: the size of nasal polyps as seen through a small camera (endoscopy), and how badly participants felt their nasal blockage was on a daily rating scale. The reported data shows that, at week 56, the polyp size score (rated 0–8, where higher means larger polyps) dropped by an average of 0.3 points in the benralizumab group and 0.1 points in the placebo group. For nasal blockage (rated 0–3, where higher means more severe), the average score fell by 0.64 points in the benralizumab group and 0.45 points in the placebo group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows the smell difficulty score (0–3 scale) decreased by 0.26 versus 0.05; the sinus CT opacification score (0–24 scale) fell by 1.3 versus 0.7; and a broader quality-of-life score (0–110 scale) decreased by 18.0 versus 15.2 — all comparing benralizumab to placebo respectively. Regarding the time to a first nasal polyp surgery, the reported figures were approximately 6.3 months in the benralizumab group and 7.8 months in the placebo group, though what drove this difference is not explained in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04851964 · results posted 27 January 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04851964) looked at a medicine called tezepelumab in people with nasal polyps (growths inside the nose that can cause blockage and other symptoms). A total of 203 people received tezepelumab and 205 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) over 52 weeks. The trial was primarily measuring changes in the size of nasal polyps (using an endoscopy score out of 8) and changes in how blocked participants' noses felt day-to-day. The reported data shows that, after 52 weeks, the nasal polyp score in the tezepelumab group fell by an average of 2.46 points, compared with a fall of 0.38 points in the placebo group (both starting from the same baseline). For nasal congestion — rated by participants on a 0–3 scale — the tezepelumab group reported an average drop of 1.74 points, versus 0.70 points in the placebo group. The reported data also shows changes in several secondary measures: difficulty with sense of smell fell by 1.26 points (tezepelumab) versus 0.26 points (placebo) on a 0–3 scale; a quality-of-life questionnaire score (SNOT-22, rated 0–110) fell by 45.0 points versus 17.6 points; a CT scan-based sinus score (0–24) fell by 6.27 points versus 0.57 points. Regarding the need for surgery or steroid rescue treatment, 5.7% of participants in the tezepelumab group reached that point compared with 31.4% in the placebo group. These figures reflect the numbers submitted to the registry; the study did not report any missing outcome data for the measures listed above. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05672030 · results posted 24 November 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 30 people in total, split evenly across three groups of 10: people with a condition called Aspirin-exacerbated Respiratory Disease (AERD, where aspirin triggers breathing or nasal symptoms), people with nasal polyps who can tolerate aspirin (called aspirin-tolerant chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps), and healthy volunteers. All 30 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was not testing a treatment — instead, it was focused on whether researchers could successfully collect and analyse biological samples (specifically, certain immune cells called plasma cells) from nasal polyp tissue, and study particular biological signals within those cells and the lining of the nose. The reported data shows that for the primary goal — obtaining a usable genetic activity profile (a "transcriptome," meaning a snapshot of which genes are active) from nasal polyp plasma cells — all 10 participants in each of the three groups provided samples that could be successfully analysed, giving 10 out of 10 in every group. For the two secondary goals, the reported data shows the same result: all 10 participants in each group provided samples from which researchers could measure a specific protein marker on plasma cells (called IL-5Ra), and separately, all 10 in each group provided nasal tissue samples from which a related biological signalling process in the cells lining the nose could be analysed. The reported data therefore shows that the trial achieved its stated aim of obtaining analysable samples from all 30 participants across all three groups and all three measurement goals. The trial was designed to assess whether this type of laboratory analysis was possible, not to test whether any treatment produced a particular health outcome — so no treatment results were reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05878093 · results posted 25 September 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05878093) enrolled 63 people in total — 32 received a placebo and 31 received dupilumab (a 300 mg injection given every two weeks). The trial ran for 24 weeks and was measuring changes in nasal polyp size, as well as several symptom scores reported by participants, including nasal congestion, sense of smell, and overall quality of life related to their sinus condition. The reported data shows that for the main measurement — a nasal polyp score rated on a scale of 0 (no polyps) to 8 (most severe) — the placebo group's score decreased by an average of 0.50 points from their starting point, while the dupilumab group's score decreased by an average of 2.34 points. For nasal congestion (scored 0–3), the placebo group's average score fell by 0.52 points and the dupilumab group's fell by 1.06 points. For an overall symptom score covering congestion, smell, and nasal discharge (scored 0–9), the placebo group's score dropped by 1.07 points and the dupilumab group's dropped by 2.75 points. For loss of smell specifically (scored 0–3), the drops were 0.23 and 0.86 points respectively. On a 22-question quality-of-life questionnaire (scored 0–110, where higher means worse), the placebo group's score fell by 11.58 points on average, compared with 21.10 points in the dupilumab group. Finally, the reported data shows that approximately 9.4% of placebo participants received steroid rescue treatment or had surgery for nasal polyps during the study, compared with 0% in the dupilumab group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03369717 · results posted 17 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03369717) enrolled 24 people in total — 12 in a group that received antibiotics after sinus surgery, and 12 in a group that did not receive antibiotics. The trial was looking at whether taking antibiotics after surgery made a difference to rates of post-surgical infection, as well as how participants felt about their sinus-related symptoms and how their sinuses appeared on examination at follow-up visits. The reported data shows that a relatively small number of participants completed the study — 2 in the antibiotics group and 4 in the no-antibiotics group — with the remaining participants not completing it. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — confirmed bacterial infection after surgery — 1 participant in the antibiotics group had a recorded infection, while 0 participants in the no-antibiotics group had one. For the secondary outcomes, participants' self-reported symptom scores (measured on a questionnaire called the SNOT-22, where higher numbers out of 110 mean more bothersome symptoms) were broadly similar between the two groups across the follow-up visits, with scores ranging from around 21 to 25 in both groups. A separate measure of how the sinuses looked on examination (scored from 0 to 10, where higher means more signs of disease) also showed similar patterns in both groups, with scores ranging from approximately 3.5 to 5.4 across visits and groups, and generally decreasing over time. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05198518 · results posted 12 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05198518) enrolled 60 participants who had recently undergone sinus surgery. They were divided into two groups: 27 people used a microcurrent TENS device (a small device that delivers a very mild electrical current to the skin) and 33 people used a sham device (one that looked the same but did not deliver the active treatment). The trial was measuring post-surgery pain levels and overall sinus-related quality of life over a 14-day period, with participants asked to use their device at least three times a day. The reported data shows that pain was rated on a 0–10 scale (where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst possible pain). During the first five recorded uses of the device, both groups reported pain scores that generally trended downward over time. For example, at the start of the first device use, the microcurrent group reported an average score of 4.9 and the sham group 5.6; by four hours after the fifth use, those figures had fallen to 2.9 and 2.7 respectively. The reported data also shows quality-of-life scores measured using a standard sinus symptom questionnaire (the SNOT-22, scored 0–110, where higher means a greater burden of symptoms). At the start, the microcurrent group averaged 46.5 and the sham group averaged 37.6; at a later follow-up point, those scores were reported as 27.0 and 19.2 respectively. It is worth noting that the reported data does not include details about the timing of the follow-up SNOT-22 measurement, and no further breakdown or statistical comparison figures were included in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05248997 · results posted 26 March 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05248997) enrolled 261 people in total — 131 assigned to receive a 75 mg dose of rimegepant and 130 assigned to receive a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Of those, 99 in the rimegepant group and 105 in the placebo group actually received their assigned treatment, and 98 and 104 respectively completed the study. The trial was measuring symptoms of acute sinusitis (sinus pain, pressure, nasal congestion and discharge) using rating scales where participants scored their symptoms from 0 (none) to 10 (worst imaginable), and also looked at headache relief and use of additional pain relief medication within 24 hours. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — change in facial pain/pressure/fullness two hours after taking the treatment — participants in the rimegepant group reported an average reduction of 2.70 points on the 0–10 scale, while those in the placebo group reported an average reduction of 2.61 points. For the combined nasal symptom score (a 0–30 scale adding up pain, congestion and discharge), the rimegepant group reported an average drop of 7.04 points compared with 6.74 points in the placebo group. Looking at individual symptoms at two hours, nasal congestion decreased by an average of 2.48 points (rimegepant) versus 2.25 points (placebo), and nasal discharge decreased by 1.81 points (rimegepant) versus 1.85 points (placebo). For headache relief at two hours, 59.4% of people in the rimegepant group and 55.6% in the placebo group reported their headache pain had reached a "none" or "mild" level. Regarding rescue medication use in the 24 hours after dosing, 7.3% of the rimegepant group and 10.0% of the placebo group reported taking additional pain relief. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05035654 · results posted 17 December 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05035654) enrolled 48 people across three groups to test a device called LYR-220, which is designed to deliver a medication called mometasone furoate (a type of steroid) into the sinus cavity. Three participants were in a group testing an earlier version of the device (Design 1), 24 were in a group testing a refined version (Design 2), and 21 received a sham (dummy) procedure as a comparison group. The trial was primarily measuring how much of the medication entered the bloodstream, and whether any serious unexpected problems related to the product occurred. The reported data shows that across all three groups, zero participants experienced a product-related unexpected serious adverse event — the main safety-related measure the trial was tracking. For blood levels of the medication, the reported data shows that concentrations measured at various time points ranged roughly from around 11 to 136 picograms per millilitre (pg/mL, a very small unit of measurement), varying across the groups and time points. The highest single reported average blood level was 135.83 pg/mL in the Design 2 group. For the secondary (additional) measures, the reported data shows that adverse events (any unwanted health occurrences) were recorded in 1 out of 3 participants in the Design 1 group, 23 out of 24 in the Design 2 group, and 16 out of 21 in the sham group. Newly identified or worsened findings on internal camera examination of the sinus area were reported in 0, 6, and 3 participants respectively. Zero participants in any group were reported to have a clinically significant increase in eye pressure, and cataract changes were reported in 1 participant in the Design 2 group across the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04607005 · results posted 25 November 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04607005) enrolled 169 people in total — 84 received mepolizumab and 85 received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). The trial ran for 52 weeks and was measuring two main things: the size of nasal polyps (growths inside the nose) as scored by doctors reviewing video recordings of nasal examinations, and how much nasal blockage participants reported in a daily electronic diary. Polyp size was scored on a scale of 0 to 8 (higher = worse), and nasal blockage was rated on a scale of 0 to 10 (higher = worse). The reported data shows that, when looking at polyp scores, both groups started at similar levels and both saw reductions by week 52. In the mepolizumab group, the average polyp score fell by approximately 0.65 points, compared with approximately 0.19 points in the placebo group. For nasal blockage, the mepolizumab group reported an average reduction of approximately 3.20 points on the 0–10 scale, while the placebo group reported a reduction of approximately 1.77 points. These figures represent the change from each participant's starting score to their score at the end of the study. The reported data also shows results for an additional measure — overall symptom score (covering nasal discharge, mucus in the throat, loss of smell, and facial pain, as well as blockage, all combined). Here the mepolizumab group reported an average reduction of approximately 3.31 points on the 0–10 scale, compared with approximately 1.77 points in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05015530 · results posted 8 November 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 12 adults who used a hypertonic seawater-based nasal spray called Healsea® Chronic, which also contains a natural extract called Symbiofilm®. All 12 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in the nasal microbiome (the community of bacteria living inside the nose and sinuses) after 30 days of using the spray, as well as participants' quality of life and satisfaction with the product. It is worth noting that only 3 of the 12 participants were included in the strictest analysis group (called the "Per Protocol Set"), which means the majority did not fully meet all the study's pre-set criteria for that analysis. The reported data shows that the primary measure — a score called the Shannon Index, which estimates the variety and balance of bacterial species in the nose — was 2.041 at the start of the study and 2.114 after 30 days of treatment, representing a very small numerical change. For quality of life, participants completed a standardised nasal symptom questionnaire (the SNOT-22, where higher scores indicate more bothersome symptoms). The reported data shows the average score started at 59.3 and dropped to 41.8 after 30 days, a change of −17.5 points. The study noted that a change greater than −9 points was considered potentially meaningful by their chosen benchmark. Regarding satisfaction with ease of use (usability), all 12 participants selected the most positive rating available. For taste, 8 out of 12 chose a neutral rating, 3 chose a positive rating, and 1 chose the most positive rating. For their perception of the product's cleansing and moistening effect, 2 participants chose a neutral rating, 6 chose a positive rating, and 4 chose the most positive rating. No data was reported for the adverse events outcome measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03979209 · results posted 12 August 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at three different doses of a nasal rinse containing mometasone (a steroid medication) — 1 mg, 2 mg, and 4 mg. The trial was measuring whether using this rinse continuously could affect levels of a hormone called cortisol in the blood. Cortisol is a natural hormone your body produces, and when people use steroid-based treatments, one thing researchers sometimes check is whether the body's own cortisol production is being reduced (known as "suppression"). A total of 16 people started and completed the trial — 2 in the 1 mg group and 14 in the 2 mg group. No participants were enrolled in the 4 mg group. The reported data shows that cortisol was measured in the morning — a standard time to check this hormone. For the 1 mg group, the average reported morning cortisol level was 17.35 micrograms per decilitre (mcg/dL), and for the 2 mg group it was 14.48 mcg/dL. No cortisol data was reported for the 4 mg group, as no participants were enrolled in that arm. No other outcome measures appear to have been submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for this trial. It is worth noting that the 1 mg group included only 2 participants, which is a very small number, and no results for the 4 mg dose were available. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04131686 · results posted 20 February 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04131686) involved people being treated at either "Control Sites" or "Test Sites" — 146 people started in the Control group and 148 in the Test group. The vast majority completed the study: 138 in the Control group and 143 in the Test group. The trial was measuring changes in sinus-related symptoms — specifically nasal congestion, nasal or post-nasal discharge, facial pain or pressure, and reduced or lost sense of smell — as rated by an investigator (a clinician, not the patient themselves). Each symptom was scored from 0 (no symptom) to 3 (severe), giving a total possible score ranging from 0 to 12, with higher numbers meaning worse symptoms. The reported data shows that both groups had a reduction in their total symptom score between the start of the study (Day 0) and Day 14. The Control group's average total score dropped by 4.37 points, while the Test group's average total score dropped by 3.56 points. A lower (more negative) number here means a bigger reduction in reported symptoms over that two-week period. No other outcome measures — such as secondary outcomes — appear to have been submitted in the data provided, so those figures were not reported and cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05049122 · results posted 22 January 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05049122) enrolled 25 adults who received injections of dupilumab 300 mg. The trial was measuring changes in nasal polyp size and a range of symptoms — including nasal congestion, loss of smell, and overall symptom burden — in people with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (a condition where persistent sinus inflammation causes growths inside the nose). The main study treatment period ran for 24 weeks, with some participants continuing to 52 weeks. Of the 25 who started, 22 completed the full trial. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — the proportion of participants whose nasal polyp score improved by at least 1 point on an 8-point scale by week 24 — the figure was 92% of participants. Regarding the secondary outcomes at week 24, the reported data shows the average nasal polyp score (on the same 0–8 scale, where higher means more severe) decreased by 2.4 points from where it started. The sinus "opacification" score — a CT scan measure of how blocked the sinuses appeared, rated 0–24 — decreased on average by 5.6 points. The overall symptom score (rated 0–9, covering congestion, smell loss, and nasal discharge) decreased by an average of 4.2 points. The nasal congestion score alone (rated 0–3) decreased by an average of 1.58 points, and the loss-of-smell score (also 0–3) decreased by an average of 1.37 points. In all cases, a decrease means movement toward fewer or less severe symptoms on those scales. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03960580 · results posted 21 December 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03960580) enrolled 223 adults with chronic rhinosinusitis (long-term sinus inflammation). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a placebo (inactive treatment), a lower dose of a nasal spray called OPN-375 (186 micrograms twice daily), or a higher dose of OPN-375 (372 micrograms twice daily). The trial measured two main things: how much three key sinus symptoms — nasal congestion, facial pain or pressure, and nasal discharge — changed over four weeks (scored on a combined 0–9 scale, where higher numbers mean worse symptoms); and how much the amount of sinus blockage visible on a CT scan changed over 24 weeks. Of the 223 people who started, 210 completed the study. The reported data shows that, for the combined symptom score at four weeks, all three groups recorded a reduction (improvement) from their starting scores. The placebo group's score fell by an average of 0.81 points, the lower-dose group fell by 1.54 points, and the higher-dose group fell by 1.74 points. For the CT scan measure at 24 weeks, the reported data shows the placebo group's sinus blockage increased slightly on average (by 1.19 percentage points), while the lower-dose group's blockage decreased by an average of 7.00 percentage points and the higher-dose group's decreased by 5.14 percentage points. The reported secondary outcome data shows that individual symptoms — congestion, facial pain, nasal discharge, and sense of smell — also all showed reductions across every group at four weeks, with the two OPN-375 groups generally recording larger reductions than the placebo group. A quality-of-life questionnaire (the SNOT-22, scored 0–110) showed reductions in total score at 24 weeks of 8.72 points for placebo, 19.45 points for the lower dose, and 15.54 points for the higher dose. The time to a first worsening of sinusitis requiring extra treatment was reported as 9.83 weeks for placebo, 5.00 weeks for the lower dose, and 8.04 weeks for the higher dose. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04041609 · results posted 6 June 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04041609) enrolled 71 adults with chronic sinusitis across three groups: 24 received a low dose of LYR-210 (an implantable device placed in the sinuses), 23 received a high dose of LYR-210, and 24 underwent a sham (dummy) procedure for comparison. The trial measured changes in sinusitis symptom scores, quality-of-life questionnaire scores, sinus imaging scores, and the number of participants who experienced side effects thought to be related to the treatment, over a period of up to 24 weeks. Not everyone completed the study — 17, 15, and 17 participants finished in the low-dose, high-dose, and sham groups respectively. The reported data shows that at week 4 — the main measurement point — average symptom scores (rated 0–3 per symptom, with higher meaning worse) fell by 2.24 points in the low-dose group, 2.65 points in the high-dose group, and 2.28 points in the sham group, all measured from where participants started. By week 24, the reported drops in symptom scores were larger: 3.36 (low dose), 4.32 (high dose), and 2.68 (sham). A separate quality-of-life questionnaire (scored 0–110, higher meaning worse) showed average reductions of 30.0 points (low dose), 40.7 points (high dose), and 21.7 points (sham) by week 24. For sinus imaging, 13 participants in the low-dose group, 14 in the high-dose group, and 10 in the sham group showed at least a small improvement in how blocked their sinuses appeared on scans. The reported data also shows that the number of participants who experienced side effects considered possibly related to the treatment was 11 in the low-dose group, 5 in the high-dose group, and 5 in the sham group. Blood drug-level measurements at week 4 were only reported for the two LYR-210 groups (13.6 and 45.4 picograms per millilitre for low and high dose respectively); no figure was reported for the sham group, as participants in that group did not receive the active device. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04754230 · results posted 5 April 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 40 people in total — 19 in one group and 21 in another. All 40 participants completed the trial with no drop-outs. The trial compared two intravenous (drip) treatments given during or after surgery: a normal saline (salt water) solution, which acted as a placebo (an inactive comparison), and a 1,000 mg dose of tranexamic acid, a medication sometimes used to reduce bleeding. Each day for six days after their procedure, participants rated their own bleeding on a scale from 0 (no bleeding at all) to 10 (uncontrolled bleeding). The reported data shows the average self-reported bleeding scores for each group across the six days after the procedure. On day one, the saline group scored 5.03 and the tranexamic acid group scored 4.82. On day two, scores were 4.47 and 3.89 respectively. By day three, both groups reported lower scores — 2.93 for saline and 2.29 for tranexamic acid. On day four, scores were 2.12 and 1.44; on day five, 1.32 and 1.15; and on day six, 1.36 and 0.76. In both groups, the reported scores generally decreased over the six days. No secondary outcome measures were included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03055507 · results posted 22 March 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 42 people who had undergone nasal surgery — 16 in a control group and 26 in an ibuprofen group. All 42 participants completed the trial with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring post-operative pain levels, nasal bleeding, and the number of opioid (strong painkiller) pills taken each day after surgery. Pain and bleeding were measured using a visual analogue scale — essentially a 10-centimetre line where 0 means none at all and 10 means the worst imaginable. The reported data shows that for post-operative pain, the control group scored between 3.0 and 3.3 out of 10 across the different measurement time points, while the ibuprofen group scored between 1.7 and 2.3 out of 10. For nasal bleeding on the 0–10 scale, the control group recorded scores of 3.2 and 1.2 across time points, compared with 2.3 and 0.5 for the ibuprofen group. On a separate 0–4 bleeding scale, the control group scored 1.5 and 0.7, while the ibuprofen group scored 0.9 and 0.3. For opioid pill use, the reported data shows both groups took an average of 4 pills per day — the same number for each group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03673956 · results posted 20 April 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at four different antibiotic nasal saline rinses used to treat sinus infections after surgery. The four groups were: mupirocin, tobramycin, levofloxacin, and vancomycin — each mixed into a saltwater nasal rinse. A total of 19 people started the trial across all four groups (12, 1, 5, and 1 respectively), and 17 completed it. The two who did not finish were both in the mupirocin group. The trial was measuring whether participants developed new antibiotic-resistant organisms (germs that become harder to treat), and also tracked changes in participants' self-reported sinus symptoms and physical examination scores. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome — new antibiotic resistance detected by nasal swab — zero participants in the mupirocin, tobramycin, and vancomycin groups developed new resistant organisms, while one participant in the levofloxacin group did. For the symptom survey (scored 0–110, where higher means worse symptoms), the reported changes were: mupirocin −18, tobramycin +14, levofloxacin −25.5, and vancomycin −11. A negative number means scores went down (i.e., reported symptoms decreased), while the tobramycin group showed an increase. For the physical examination score (scored 0–12, where higher means more signs of sinus disease), the reported changes were: mupirocin −5.3, tobramycin −3, levofloxacin −2.4, and vancomycin 0. It is worth noting that most groups were very small — particularly tobramycin and vancomycin, which each had only one participant — so these figures should be understood in that context. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01955980 · results posted 12 April 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two nasal spray treatments — called "Buparid" (Treatment A) and "Budes" (Treatment B) — in people with inflammation of the nasal passages and sinuses. A total of 19 people took part: 10 in the Buparid group and 9 in the Budes group. All participants who started the trial completed it. The trial measured changes in sinus inflammation using medical imaging scores, self-reported quality of life, and nasal airflow, as well as tracking unwanted side effects. The reported data shows the following numbers. For the main measure — a sinus inflammation score based on MRI scans (where 0 means no inflammation and 24 means the most severe) — the Buparid group showed a change of 0 points from the start, while the Budes group showed a change of −0.8 points (a small decrease). For quality of life (scored 0–100, where higher means more impairment), the reported change scores after 48 weeks were 17.1 for the Buparid group and 22.9 for the Budes group — noting that these appear to represent changes from the starting point, though the direction of change is not fully detailed in the submitted data. For nasal airflow (measured in millilitres per second), readings were taken at two time points: at 4 weeks, the Buparid group recorded 542.4 ml/sec and the Budes group 582.0 ml/sec; at 8 weeks, the figures were 461.5 ml/sec and 551.5 ml/sec respectively. Regarding unwanted events (side effects), 6 participants in each group were reported to have experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event. Data for one secondary measure — MRI-based mucosa thickness — was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01946711 · results posted 12 April 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 14 people in total — 8 in the "Buparid" group (Treatment A) and 6 in the "Budes" group (Treatment B). All 14 participants completed the trial. The study was measuring changes in inflammation of the nasal passages and sinuses, using a scoring system called the Lund-Mackay score (based on MRI scans), where a score of 0 means no impairment and 24 means the most severe impairment. It also looked at side effects, quality of life, and nasal airflow. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — change in nasal and sinus inflammation — the Buparid group's average score went down by 2 points, while the Budes group's average score went down by 0.8 points. A lower (more negative) change means the score reduced from where it started. For the secondary measure of side effects, 5 out of 8 participants in the Buparid group and 4 out of 6 in the Budes group experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted or unexpected health event noticed during the trial). For quality of life, measured using a 22-question survey (scored 0–110, where higher means more difficulty), the reported average change from the start of the trial to 24 weeks was an increase of 23.6 points in the Buparid group and 14.4 points in the Budes group — noting that a higher number here indicates more reported difficulty. For nasal airflow, measured at two time points (4 and 8 weeks), the reported figures were not described in a way that allows straightforward comparison without additional context, but the raw values ranged from 574 to 755 ml/sec across both groups and time points. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial, and some details — such as what the scores were at the start of the trial — were not fully reported in the structured data, so the full picture of the changes cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03188822 · results posted 3 December 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03188822) enrolled 9 participants, all of whom received a bioabsorbable (dissolving) steroid-releasing sinus implant. The trial was comparing two different dissolving devices placed in the sinuses after surgery — a steroid-releasing sinus stent on one side and a steroid-soaked nasal dressing on the other side — looking at how the sinus opening appeared afterwards. Only 2 of the 9 participants completed the trial, and 7 did not complete it. Because so few participants finished, the reported numbers are based on a very small group. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — where an independent sinus specialist rated whether the stent side looked better, worse, or the same as the nasal dressing side — 0 participants were rated as worse, 1 was rated the same, and 1 was rated as better. For the secondary outcomes, scarring and swelling in the sinus opening were rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (where higher numbers mean a worse appearance). The reported data shows a range of scores across participants for both the left and right sides, with individual scores varying from 0 to 3 for scarring and 0 to 3 for swelling. For the size of the sinus opening (whether it measured 4 mm or more), the reported data shows results split across categories, though specific labels for each category were not included in the submitted data. It is important to note that with only 2 participants completing the trial, the reported numbers represent a very small and incomplete dataset, and the data was not reported for all participants across every measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01214057 · results posted 1 November 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 23 people who were having nasal/sinus surgery. Participants were split into two groups: 12 received total intravenous anaesthesia (all anaesthetic drugs given through a drip) and 11 received inhaled anaesthesia (anaesthetic gases breathed in). The trial was measuring several things during surgery, including how much blood was lost, how clearly the surgeon could see the operating area, how well the blood was clotting (specifically how platelets — the cells that help blood clot — were functioning), and how much blood was flowing through the nasal lining. The reported data shows that the intravenous anaesthesia group had a measured blood loss of around 153 millilitres on average, while the inhaled anaesthesia group had a measured blood loss of around 356 millilitres on average. For surgical field visibility, surgeons used a rating scale from 0 (no bleeding at all) to 5 (so much bleeding that surgery is usually not possible) — the reported data shows that no participants in either group received the most severe rating of 5. For platelet (clotting cell) function, higher numbers indicate stronger clotting; the reported measurements across different time points ranged from about 58 to 71 mm in the intravenous group and from about 43 to 69 mm in the inhaled group. For nasal blood flow, more negative numbers indicate greater blood flow to the nasal lining; the reported data shows the inhaled anaesthesia group had more negative readings (ranging down to −0.41) compared to the intravenous group (ranging down to −0.11). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02217332 · results posted 18 May 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02217332) enrolled 20 people who all received the study drug dexpramipexole. Of those 20, 13 completed the trial and 7 did not finish. The trial was measuring two main things over six months: changes in the number of a type of white blood cell called eosinophils (cells that can be elevated in certain conditions) circulating in the blood, and changes in the size of nasal polyps (growths inside the nose) as scored by a rating system. Nasal polyp size was rated from 0 to 8, where a lower number means smaller or fewer polyps. The reported data shows that after six months, eosinophil counts in the blood were, on average, 0.06 times what they were at the start — meaning the counts were much lower than at baseline (the starting point before treatment). For nasal polyp scores, the reported change from baseline after six months was 0.07 units on the 0–8 scale. A secondary measure also looked at eosinophil counts at three months, where the reported ratio to baseline was 0.05. The trial also tracked a number of monitoring measures — such as blood test values, vital signs (like blood pressure and heart rate), weight, and heart tracing (ECG) readings — and reported how many participants had values that were flagged as potentially noteworthy; small numbers of participants had such flags across various categories, with the full breakdown of individual sub-measures not separately labelled in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03478930 · results posted 11 May 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03478930) enrolled 249 adults with nasal polyps — 126 who had previously received a placebo in earlier related studies, and 123 who had previously received omalizumab (an injectable medicine). The trial was measuring several things over 24 weeks: the size of nasal polyps (scored on a scale of 0–8), the severity of nasal congestion (scored 0–3 daily by participants), overall nasal symptoms combined into a total score (0–12), and reduced sense of smell (scored 0–3). The trial also tracked how many participants experienced unwanted health events (called adverse events) during the study. The reported data shows that, for nasal polyp size, the placebo group's score changed by around −0.97 points by the final recorded time point, while the omalizumab group's score changed by around −1.31 points (both reductions from their starting scores, on the 0–8 scale). For nasal congestion (0–3 scale), the reported change was approximately −0.31 points in the placebo group and −0.85 points in the omalizumab group at the final time point. For the combined nasal symptom score (0–12 scale), the placebo group's score changed by roughly −0.92 points and the omalizumab group's by roughly −2.82 points. For reduced sense of smell (0–3 scale), the reported changes were approximately −0.23 and −0.56 points respectively. Regarding unwanted health events, the reported data shows that 49.6% of the placebo group and 43.5% of the omalizumab group experienced at least one adverse event, while serious adverse events were reported in 4.8% of the placebo group and 2.4% of the omalizumab group. Less than 1% of participants in either group stopped the study due to an adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03599271 · results posted 28 April 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03599271) enrolled a total of 75 people across two groups: 70 participants in a "Randomised Cohort," where each person received both a drug-coated balloon device on one side of their nose and a standard (non-drug-coated) balloon device on the other side; and 5 participants in a smaller "PK Cohort" focused on safety and drug levels. The trial was measuring the openness of the frontal sinus ostia (FSO) — the small opening that connects the frontal sinus to the nasal passage — using a specially sized probe and a scoring system from 0 (completely blocked) to 4 (fully open). The reported data shows that in the Randomised Cohort, the average openness score at Day 30 was 1.6 out of 4 for the side treated with the drug-coated device, and 1.5 out of 4 for the side treated with the standard device. For the estimated size of the opening, the treatment side measured approximately 2.8 mm (largest) and 2.2 mm (smallest), while the control side measured approximately 2.6 mm (largest) and 2.1 mm (smallest). In the smaller PK Cohort, the reported data shows that all 10 frontal sinus openings attempted were successfully dilated using the drug-coated device, meaning the balloon was fully inflated twice as required by the study's definition of success. Openness measurements in the PK Cohort varied across the reported time points, ranging from 1.1 mm to 4.1 mm depending on the measurement and timepoint. The reported data also shows that for the PK Cohort, a symptom questionnaire called the SNOT-22 (a 22-question survey where higher scores, up to 110, indicate more severe symptoms) was recorded at multiple timepoints: scores of 45.0, 21.2, and 27.6 were reported across the follow-up period, though the specific timepoints for each of these scores were not detailed in the submitted data. No further breakdown of adverse events or other outcomes was included in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01778465 · results posted 9 March 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 7 participants in total — 3 in one group and 4 in the other. It used a "crossover" design, meaning everyone tried both approaches: one group followed a low-salicylate diet for 7 days first, then switched to a normal diet for 7 days, while the other group did it in the opposite order. Salicylates are natural chemicals found in many foods. The trial was measuring several things in participants' urine, as well as their self-reported sinus and nasal symptoms. The reported data shows the following urine measurements after each diet period. For a substance called cys-leukotrienes (chemicals linked to inflammation), levels were 874.05 pg/ml on the low-salicylate diet and 771.99 pg/ml on the normal diet. For salicyluric acid (a breakdown product of salicylates), levels were 44.21 ng/ml on the low-salicylate diet and 23.82 ng/ml on the normal diet. For salicylic acid itself, levels were 0.60 ng/ml on the low-salicylate diet and 0.92 ng/ml on the normal diet. Creatinine (a substance used to help interpret urine tests) was measured at 9.9 mmol/L on the low-salicylate diet and 15.3 mmol/L on the normal diet. The reported data also shows results from a symptom questionnaire called the SNOT-22, which asks people to rate 22 sinus and nasal symptoms on a scale from 0 (no problem) to 5 (as bad as it can be), giving a total possible score of 0 to 110 — where a higher score means worse symptoms. Participants reported an average score of 44 during the low-salicylate diet period and 66 during the normal diet period. It is worth noting that only 7 people completed this trial, which is a very small number, and the data as submitted does not include any further statistical analysis of these results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03661346 · results posted 8 February 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 28 people in total — 13 in the esmolol group and 15 in the labetalol group — and all of them completed the study with no drop-outs. Both esmolol and labetalol are medications used during anaesthesia to help control blood pressure and heart rate. The trial was looking at how clearly surgeons could see the operating field during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS, a procedure inside the nose and sinuses), as well as how much blood was lost and what happened to blood pressure and heart rate during the operation. The reported data shows that surgical visibility was scored using two different rating tools. On the Boezaart scale (where 0 means no bleeding and 5 means the worst bleeding), both groups scored an average of 3.1. On the Wormald scale (where 0 means no bleeding and 10 means the worst), the esmolol group averaged 6.1 and the labetalol group averaged 5.9. For the secondary measurements, the reported data shows that blood loss rate was 0.59 mL per minute in the esmolol group and 0.66 mL per minute in the labetalol group. Average blood pressure (measured as mean arterial pressure, a standard way of summarising blood pressure across a reading) was 79.7 mmHg for esmolol and 79.4 mmHg for labetalol. Average heart rate was 72 beats per minute for esmolol and 69 beats per minute for labetalol. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03450083 · results posted 22 January 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03450083) enrolled 24 people in total — 12 in the benralizumab treatment group and 12 in a placebo (dummy treatment) group. All 24 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in nasal polyp burden and related symptoms over approximately six months, using several scoring tools including scans, smell tests, a symptom questionnaire, and blood tests. The reported data shows the following numbers across the groups. For the main measure — a scoring system for nasal polyp size and number seen on a camera exam (scored 0–8, where higher means more or larger polyps) — the treatment group's score changed by +0.9 and the placebo group's by +0.3, meaning both groups showed a small increase on this scale. For a CT scan-based scoring system (scored 0–24, higher meaning more blockage), the treatment group's score changed by −4.2 and the placebo group's by −1.6, meaning both groups showed a decrease. For a self-reported symptom questionnaire (scored 0–110, higher meaning worse symptoms), the treatment group's score changed by −19.2 and the placebo group's by −14.6, again showing decreases in both groups. For the smell identification test (scored 0–40, higher meaning better smell identification), the treatment group's score changed by +6.6 and the placebo group's by +4.3. For use of a steroid rescue medicine (prednisone), the reported total amounts taken were 302.5 mg in the treatment group and 297.5 mg in the placebo group. For a blood cell count measuring a particular type of immune cell (eosinophils, normal range 30–300 cells/uL), the reported figures were 678 cells/uL in the treatment group and 196.7 cells/uL in the placebo group; the data does not clarify whether these represent baseline levels or changes over time. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02927834 · results posted 29 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 24 people across three groups — eight in each group. The three groups were: those who received an antibiotic only, those who received the antibiotic Augmentin combined with a 6-day course of steroids, and those who received Augmentin combined with a 21-day course of steroids. The trial was measuring sinus and nasal symptoms using three tools: a symptom questionnaire (called the SNOT-20), a physical examination of the nasal cavity using a small camera (nasal endoscopy), and a CT scan of the sinuses. By the end of the study, 7 people completed the antibiotic-only group, and 6 people completed each of the two Augmentin-with-steroid groups. The reported data shows the following scores at the end of the trial. For the SNOT-20 symptom questionnaire (scored 0–100, where a lower number means fewer symptoms reported): the antibiotic-only group scored 50.33, the Augmentin with 6-day steroid group scored 53.14, and the Augmentin with 21-day steroid group scored 37. For the nasal camera examination (scored 0–12, lower is better): the scores were 2.55, 3.00, and 2.16 respectively across the three groups. For the CT scan of the sinuses (scored 0–20, lower is better): the scores were 10.33, 11.00, and 11.83 respectively. It is worth noting that the trial enrolled only a small number of people — around six to eight per group — which is important context when looking at these numbers. No data about the statistical significance of any differences between the groups (that is, whether the differences seen were likely due to chance or not) was included in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03705793 · results posted 19 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 53 people in total — 27 in one group who used a mometasone furoate nasal irrigation (a steroid medication delivered as a rinse through the nose) and 26 in a second group who used a mometasone nasal spray (the same type of steroid delivered as a spray). Of those, 22 and 21 people respectively completed the trial. The trial was measuring changes in sinus and nasal symptoms, participants' own sense of how they responded to treatment, and physical findings seen during a camera examination of the nose. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — a symptom questionnaire called the SNOT-22, which runs from 0 (no problems) to 110 (worst possible) — the average change in score was reported as 23.18 points for the nasal irrigation group and 17.7 points for the nasal spray group. The data does not specify whether these figures represent the final score or the amount of change from the start, so the exact meaning of these numbers cannot be confirmed from what was submitted. For one of the secondary outcomes, participants were asked to rate their overall response to treatment on a 7-point scale; a score below 3 indicated at least "much improved." The reported data shows that 22 out of 22 completers in the nasal irrigation group and 20 out of 21 completers in the nasal spray group scored below 3 on that scale. For the nasal camera examination, which scores inflammation in the nose from 0 to 12, the reported average scores were 2.2 for the nasal irrigation group and 2.1 for the nasal spray group; it was not reported whether these were final scores or changes from the starting point. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02285283 · results posted 28 October 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02285283) enrolled 58 people in total — 29 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) and 29 received itraconazole, an antifungal medicine. The trial was measuring whether nasal polyps (small, non-cancerous growths inside the nose) came back after treatment to the point where further intervention was needed. Not everyone finished the study — 25 of the 29 placebo participants and 20 of the 29 itraconazole participants completed it. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — the number of people whose nasal polyps returned and required further intervention — 3 out of 29 participants in the placebo group and 4 out of 29 participants in the itraconazole group reached that point. For the secondary outcome, which tracked the number of participants who experienced adverse events (unwanted side effects or health problems) while taking the medication or placebo, the reported data shows zero participants in either group recorded an adverse event during that period. It is worth noting that 9 participants in the itraconazole group did not complete the study, compared with 4 in the placebo group, though the reasons for this were not detailed in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01919411 · results posted 10 February 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 89 people with chronic sinusitis who were having sinus surgery. Participants were randomly split into two groups: 43 people received a combination antibiotic (amoxicillin-potassium clavulanate) and 46 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active medicine). The trial was measuring two main things: how people felt about their sinus symptoms using a questionnaire called the SNOT-22 (where higher scores mean worse symptoms, on a scale of 0 to 110), and how the sinuses looked during a camera examination using a scoring system called the Lund Kennedy score (where higher scores mean more disease visible, on a scale of 0 to 20). The reported data shows that at the start of the study, both groups had very similar SNOT-22 symptom scores — 31.3 for the antibiotic group and 31.0 for the placebo group. At a later follow-up point, the antibiotic group's score had dropped to 22.3, while the placebo group's score had dropped to 17.5. For the camera examination scores, the reported data shows starting scores of 5.6 (antibiotic group) and 5.9 (placebo group), which later shifted to 4.3 and 4.5 respectively. The trial did not report whether the differences between the two groups were considered meaningful beyond these raw numbers. The reported data also shows that post-operative infections were recorded as an additional measure. In one time period, 1 participant in the antibiotic group and 0 in the placebo group had a post-operative infection recorded; in a second time period, no infections were recorded in either group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03358329 · results posted 27 November 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03358329) involved 50 people who received a device called the S8 Sinus Implant. Of those 50 participants, 46 completed the study, while 4 did not finish. The trial was measuring whether any serious unwanted events related to the implant occurred, and also tracking how participants rated their sinus-related symptoms and nasal blockage over time — specifically at 90 days and 180 days after the procedure. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the number of participants who experienced a serious harmful event linked to the implant — the figure was zero out of 50 participants over the course of the year-long follow-up period. For the secondary measures, participants filled out a sinus symptom questionnaire (scored from 0 to 110, where higher numbers mean worse symptoms). The reported data shows an average change of approximately minus 14.9 points at 90 days and minus 15.4 points at 180 days from where participants started — with negative numbers meaning scores went down from the starting point. For nasal blockage, rated on a 0 to 3 scale, the reported average change was minus 0.6 at both 90 days and 180 days from the starting point, again with negative numbers indicating scores moved downward from baseline. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02403479 · results posted 15 November 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 22 people in total — 10 in one group and 12 in the other. It was a crossover study, meaning participants tried both treatments at different times: one group received saline (a saltwater rinse) first and then silver colloid (a liquid containing tiny silver particles), while the other group received them in the opposite order. The trial was measuring changes in two things over 12 weeks: a questionnaire score reflecting how much chronic rhinosinusitis (long-term sinus inflammation) affected quality of life, and a score from a camera examination of the sinuses. Of the 22 who started, 20 completed the trial — 2 people in the "saline first" group did not finish, and the data does not report why. The reported data shows the following numbers for the quality-of-life questionnaire (called the SNOT-22, scored 0–110, where higher scores mean more severe symptoms): at the start of the study, the "saline first" group averaged 59.3 and the "silver colloid first" group averaged 52.9. At the 6-week point, those averages were 45.4 and 51.8 respectively. At 12 weeks, they were 49.3 and 56.5. For the camera examination score (called the Lund-Kennedy score, ranging 0–24, where higher means more obstruction), the starting averages were 7.8 and 6.8. At 6 weeks they were 5.9 and 5.7, and at 12 weeks they were 4.8 and 4.7. The reported data does not include a statistical comparison between the two treatments, so no conclusion about any difference between them can be drawn from the figures alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02898454 · results posted 23 October 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02898454) enrolled 448 adults across three groups: 153 received a placebo (an inactive treatment), 145 received dupilumab 300 mg every two weeks and then switched to every four weeks, and 150 received dupilumab 300 mg every two weeks throughout. The trial was measuring changes over 24 weeks in nasal polyp size and nasal congestion severity, along with several other symptoms including sense of smell, sinus blockage, and overall symptom burden. For the 24-week results, the two dupilumab groups were combined into one pooled group for comparison against placebo. The reported data shows the following changes from the starting point to week 24 (where a more negative number means a greater reduction on that scale). For nasal congestion — rated 0 to 3, with 3 being most severe — the placebo group's average score changed by −0.38, while the dupilumab group's changed by −1.25. For nasal polyp size — rated 0 to 8, with 8 being largest — the placebo group's score changed by +0.10 (a slight increase), while the dupilumab group's changed by −1.71. For sinus opacification (how blocked the sinuses appeared on imaging, scored 0 to 24), the placebo group changed by −0.09 and the dupilumab group by −5.21. For the combined symptom score (0 to 9 scale), the placebo group changed by −1.00 and the dupilumab group by −3.45. The reported data also shows results for sense of smell. On a standardised smell identification test scored 0 to 40 — where a higher score means a better sense of smell — the placebo group's average changed by −0.81 (a slight worsening) and the dupilumab group's changed by +9.71 (an increase). On the participant-reported smell loss scale (0 to 3), the placebo group changed by −0.23 and the dupilumab group by −1.21. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02562924 · results posted 16 October 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 37 people in total, split across three groups: 13 people used a budesonide (a type of steroid) rinse, 12 used a MEDIHONEY® rinse alone, and 12 used a combination of both. The trial was looking at changes in sinus health over roughly four months (to day 119) after sinus surgery, using a doctor's examination of the nasal passages, as well as a patient-completed symptom questionnaire. It is worth noting that a large number of participants did not complete the study — only 12 of 13 finished in the budesonide group, just 1 of 12 finished in the MEDIHONEY® alone group, and 8 of 12 finished in the combination group. The reported data shows that the primary measure — a doctor's visual scoring of the sinuses (called the Lund-Kennedy score, where a lower score means less disease, on a scale of 0 to 20) — changed from the start of the study to day 119 by an average of minus 8.0 points in the budesonide group, minus 1.5 points in the MEDIHONEY® alone group, and minus 6.9 points in the combination group. For the patient-reported symptom questionnaire (SNOT-22, scored 0–110 where lower means fewer problems), the reported average change was minus 22.8 in the budesonide group, minus 15.3 in the MEDIHONEY® alone group, and minus 25.6 in the combination group. Looking at just the nasal symptom portion of that questionnaire (scored 0–35), the reported average changes were minus 10.0, minus 5.3, and minus 11.7 respectively. The nasal drainage culture results were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01990820 · results posted 1 October 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 25 children in total — 13 in one group and 12 in the other. All 25 completed the study, with no drop-outs reported. The trial was comparing two surgical approaches for children with sinus problems: one group received an adenoidectomy (removal of the adenoids) plus a wash-out of the maxillary sinuses (the sinuses behind the cheeks), while the other group received the same procedure but with the addition of a balloon dilation to widen the sinus opening. The main thing being measured was quality of life, as reported by each child's caregiver using a questionnaire called the SN-5. The reported data shows that caregivers rated their child's sinus-related quality of life using the SN-5 scale, where a score of 1 means the best possible quality of life and 7 means the worst. Before surgery, the group without balloon dilation had an average score of 2.48, and the group with balloon dilation scored 2.50 — very similar starting points. At 12 months after surgery, the scores were 2.25 and 2.40 respectively. Caregivers also gave an overall quality of life rating on a separate 0–10 scale (where 10 is the best). The reported data shows that at 12 months, the without-balloon group averaged 8.27 and the with-balloon group averaged 7.60 on this scale. Earlier post-surgery scores (likely at 6 months) were 8.10 and 8.27 respectively. It is worth noting that this was a small trial with 25 participants, and only the scores themselves were reported in the submitted data — no information about whether any differences between the two groups were considered meaningful was included in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02696850 · results posted 3 September 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02696850) enrolled 80 adults in total — 40 in a group receiving budesonide (a steroid medicine) added to a saltwater nasal rinse, and 40 receiving a saltwater (saline) rinse alone. The trial was measuring changes in nasal and sinus symptoms over four weeks, using a questionnaire called the SNOT-22, which asks people to rate how much their sinus-related symptoms bother them. Of those who started, 29 people in the budesonide group and 32 in the saline-alone group completed the study. The reported data shows that the primary measure — the change in SNOT-22 symptom scores from the start to four weeks later — was 20.7 points in the budesonide group and 13.6 points in the saline-alone group. On this scale (which runs from -110 to 110), a positive number means scores moved in a favourable direction over the four weeks, with higher positive numbers indicating a greater reported improvement in symptoms. For a secondary measure, participants were asked to rate their overall response to treatment on a scale from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse); the reported data shows 24 participants in the budesonide group and 20 in the saline-alone group responded to this question, though the specific breakdown of their individual ratings was not reported in the data. An additional measure looked at changes in nasal passage appearance assessed by a doctor (endoscopic scores), with the budesonide group recording a change of 3.4 points and the saline-alone group recording 2.7 points on a 0–20 scale, where larger positive changes reflect a more favourable result. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00626366 · results posted 15 August 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 18 participants in total — 9 people who used a nasal spray and 9 who used nasal drops. All 18 participants completed the study, with no one dropping out. The trial was measuring how well each delivery method — spray versus drops — spread a contrast liquid (a substance that shows up on scans) throughout different areas inside the nasal cavity. To do this, researchers used CT scans and divided each person's nasal cavity into 21 sections on each side (42 sections total), scoring each section as either reached (1) or not reached (0) by the spray or drops. The reported data shows a series of distribution scores for the nasal spray and nasal drops across different measurements of the nasal cavity. For the nasal spray, the reported scores were 18, 16, 0, 12, 16, and 15. For the nasal drops, the corresponding reported scores were 17, 17, 6, 4, 0, and 6. These numbers reflect how many nasal cavity sections (out of a possible 42) showed the presence of the contrast substance in each measurement recorded. The reported data does not include labels explaining what specific nasal sub-regions each pair of scores refers to, so a detailed breakdown by location cannot be described here. It is worth noting that this was a small study with only 9 participants in each group, and the results as submitted describe distribution patterns only — the trial was not measuring whether either method treated or improved any condition. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02912468 · results posted 25 July 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02912468) enrolled 276 adults in total — 133 in the placebo group and 143 in the dupilumab 300 mg group. The trial was measuring changes over 24 weeks in people with nasal polyps, looking mainly at two things: how blocked participants felt their nose was (rated on a 0–3 scale, where higher means more severe), and the actual size of the nasal polyps as seen on a camera examination (rated on a 0–8 scale, where higher means larger polyps). A number of secondary measurements were also taken, including sinus cloudiness on scans, overall nasal symptoms, and sense of smell. The reported data shows that for nasal congestion, scores dropped by an average of 0.45 points in the placebo group and 1.34 points in the dupilumab group from where they started. For nasal polyp size, the placebo group's average score actually went up slightly by 0.17 points, while the dupilumab group's average score went down by 1.89 points. Regarding sinus cloudiness (measured on a 0–24 scale), the placebo group saw a decrease of 0.74 points and the dupilumab group saw a decrease of 8.18 points. For the overall symptom score (0–9 scale), the reported changes were −1.17 for placebo and −3.77 for dupilumab. On a 40-point smell identification test (where a higher score means a better sense of smell), scores rose by an average of 0.70 points in the placebo group and 11.26 points in the dupilumab group. The self-reported loss-of-smell score (0–3 scale) decreased by 0.29 points in the placebo group and 1.41 points in the dupilumab group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03102190 · results posted 21 June 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a Phase Ib clinical trial (an early-stage study focused on safety monitoring) that enrolled 6 participants. All 6 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring whether a specific, serious type of heart rhythm problem — known as 2nd or 3rd degree heart block (where the electrical signals in the heart are partially or fully blocked) — occurred in participants after receiving the treatment. This type of event was defined as a "dose limiting toxicity," meaning a side effect serious enough that it would limit how much of the treatment could be given. The reported data shows that, out of the 6 participants, zero experienced this particular heart rhythm problem during the study. No other outcome measures (such as secondary outcomes) appear to have been submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for this trial, so no further results data is available to describe. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01685229 · results posted 13 May 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01685229) enrolled 198 people with chronic sinusitis — 146 in the balloon sinus dilation (BSD) group and 52 in the medical management group. The trial compared two approaches to managing chronic sinusitis over 52 weeks. It measured changes in participants' sinusitis symptoms and quality of life using several questionnaires, including the Chronic Sinusitis Survey (CSS), the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), and the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20). By the end of the study, 120 people in the BSD group and 36 in the medical management group had completed it. The reported data shows that the main measure — change in total CSS score at 24 weeks — recorded an average improvement of 41.9 points (out of 100) in the BSD group, compared to 27.0 points in the medical management group. A higher score on this scale means fewer symptoms and less medication use. For the RSDI questionnaire (where a lower score means less impact from sinus disease), the reported data shows average reductions of around 34.7 to 36.0 points in the BSD group across different time points, compared to reductions of around 14.7 to 18.1 points in the medical management group. For the SNOT-20 questionnaire (also where lower is better), both groups reported reductions in scores across 12, 24, and 52 weeks, with the BSD group showing reductions of around 1.6–1.7 points and the medical management group showing reductions of around 0.9–1.0 points. Changes in medication use and missed days of work or school were also measured, with both groups showing some reductions over time; the specific figures for each time point are available in the full ClinicalTrials.gov record. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02182492 · results posted 25 September 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02182492) enrolled 187 people with chronic sinus conditions who had already undergone endoscopic sinus surgery (a procedure to clear the nasal passages). Participants were split into two groups — 93 received a glucocorticoid (a type of steroid-based nasal treatment) and 94 received clarithromycin (an antibiotic-type medicine) — with treatment starting one week after surgery. The trial measured two main things over 12 months: how participants rated their own symptoms on a questionnaire, and how a doctor scored the appearance of the nasal passages using a small camera. By the end of the study, 86 people in each group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that both groups started with similar self-reported symptom scores just before the surgery began (20.4 for the glucocorticoid group and 20.7 for the clarithromycin group, on a scale of 0–50 where higher means more severe). At the 12-month mark, the glucocorticoid group's score had dropped to 5.6, while the clarithromycin group's score had dropped to 4.8. For the nasal camera assessment (scored 0–22, with higher meaning more severe), starting scores were 8.2 and 7.6 respectively, and at 12 months these had fallen to 2.7 for the glucocorticoid group and 2.1 for the clarithromycin group. A third outcome — measuring inflammatory proteins in tissue samples — was listed in the trial but no numerical data was reported for it on ClinicalTrials.gov. The reported data shows that scores in both groups were lower at each follow-up check-in compared to where they started, across both the symptom questionnaire and the camera assessment. No data was reported comparing the two groups directly against each other in a way that would indicate which performed better. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01732536 · results posted 20 July 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 100 people in total — 53 in the treatment group (who received the S8 Sinus Implant) and 47 in the control group. Nearly all participants finished the trial (52 and 46 respectively). The trial was measuring nasal blockage symptoms and the size of nasal polyps in people with chronic sinus problems, using patient questionnaires and video camera examinations of the sinuses reviewed by independent surgeons. The reported data shows that, for the main measures, both groups started with similar scores. On a nasal congestion scale of 0–5, the treatment group began at an average of 3.62 and ended at 2.31 (a change of −1.33), while the control group began at 3.30 and ended at 2.62 (a change of −0.67). For nasal polyp size — scored on a combined scale of 0–8 by independent surgeons — the treatment group went from 4.90 to 4.12 (a change of −0.76), and the control group went from 4.39 to 4.00 (a change of −0.38). The reported data also shows that on a separate symptom questionnaire (the NOSE score, out of 100), the treatment group changed by −25.58 points and the control group by −12.22 points. For the measure of whether patients met the criteria for further sinus surgery, 25 out of 53 treatment participants and 36 out of 47 control participants were reported as meeting those criteria. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01197612 · results posted 29 May 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 18 people started this trial, which looked at whether a nasal rinse containing a steroid medication (Pulmicort) made a difference to smell ability and sinus health. Unusually, the trial used each participant's own two nostrils as a comparison — one nostril received the treatment and the other did not. Only 6 participants completed the full 24-week study, while 12 did not finish. The reported data shows that smell ability was measured using a standardised test called the UPSIT, which runs from 0 (unable to smell anything) to 40 (perfect smell identification). At the primary measurement point, the treated nostril side scored 20.2 and the untreated nostril side scored 19.8 out of 40. A second measurement of smell ability reported scores of 20.4 (treated side) and 20.0 (untreated side). For sinus health, a scale called the POSE score was used, running from 0 (no blockage) to 20 (greatest blockage). The reported data shows scores of 4.5 (treated) versus 4.7 (untreated) at one measurement point, and 5.6 versus 5.6 at another. No other outcome figures were reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that the small number of people who completed the trial — just 6 out of 18 — means the reported numbers are based on a very limited group, and this is an important limitation to be aware of when reading these figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00924404 · results posted 9 August 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 53 adults in total — 27 in a group using xylitol nasal rinses and 26 in a group using saline (salt water) nasal rinses. By the end of the study, 21 people in the xylitol group and 22 in the saline group had completed it. The trial was measuring nose and sinus-related quality of life using a 20-question survey called the SNOT-20, where a score of 0 means no symptoms and 100 means symptoms are "as troublesome as possible." It also tracked how many courses of antibiotics participants needed during the study period. The reported data shows that at 12 weeks, the average SNOT-20 score for the xylitol group was 7 out of 100, and for the saline group it was 11 out of 100 — both sitting in what the scale describes as the mild symptom range (0–30). For antibiotic use, the reported data shows the xylitol group took an average of 1.90 courses of antibiotics during the study, compared with 1.77 courses in the saline group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02228720 · results posted 4 August 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a small dissolvable implant called the Propel Nova Sinus Implant, which is placed inside the sinus openings (the natural drainage passages of the sinuses) after sinus surgery. The trial was designed to test whether the implant could be placed successfully, and to track how the sinus openings looked over time in terms of blockage, scarring, and inflammation. Fifteen adults were enrolled, all in a single treatment group. Fourteen of the fifteen participants completed the full follow-up period to 90 days. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — whether the implant was placed successfully in the sinus opening within two attempts — the success rate was reported as 100% for frontal sinuses and 95.2% for maxillary sinuses. For the secondary outcomes, the data reports several measurements taken at baseline (before or at the time of implant), at around 30 days, and at around 90 days. Regarding sinus opening patency (whether the opening remained unblocked), the reported figures across the two sinus types and three time points ranged from 33.3% to 100%. For moderate-to-severe adhesions or scarring (grades 2 and 3, meaning scar tissue partially or significantly blocking the sinus opening), the reported percentages ranged from 0% to 33.4% across the time points and sinus types. Inflammation scores (measured on a scale of 0 to 100, where higher means more inflammation) were reported as starting around 51–63 at baseline, and falling to around 14–28 by 90 days. A symptom questionnaire called the SNOT-22 (scored 0–110, where higher means more troublesome symptoms) was reported as starting at an average of 42.6, dropping to 21.5 at 30 days and 20.6 at 90 days. It is worth noting that this was a very small, single-group trial with no comparison group, and all figures are based on 14–15 participants. The reported data shows what was measured in this specific group of people; it does not tell us what would have happened without the implant. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01066104 · results posted 19 May 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01066104) enrolled 27 people in total — 14 in the placebo group and 13 in the Xolair (omalizumab) group. Of those, 12 people in each group finished the study. The trial was looking at whether Xolair had any effect on nasal polyps and thickened tissue in the sinuses, measured in two ways: CT scans of the sinuses and a visual examination of the nose using a small camera (rhinoscopy). The reported data shows the following numbers for the CT scan measurement (the primary outcome), expressed as percentage change in the amount of thickened tissue in the sinuses: the placebo group showed an average change of −8.9% (a decrease), while the Xolair group showed an average change of +4.2% (an increase). For the secondary outcome — a visual scoring of nasal polyp size on a scale from 0 (no polyps) to 8 (most severe) — the reported average change in score was +0.05 in the placebo group (roughly no change) and −0.33 in the Xolair group (a small decrease). These numbers describe the average shifts across each group over the course of the study. It is worth noting that this was a relatively small trial with just over a dozen participants in each group, so the reported figures reflect a limited number of people. No data was reported for any other outcome measures beyond these two. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01825408 · results posted 4 April 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 40 people in total with chronic sinusitis (long-term sinus inflammation). Participants were divided into four groups and given one of two antibiotics — doxycycline or azithromycin — for either three or six weeks. The trial was measuring how many people in each group were recommended for sinus surgery by their doctor after finishing their course of antibiotics. All 40 participants completed the trial. The reported data shows the following numbers for surgery recommendations. In the three-week treatment groups: out of 7 people taking doxycycline, 0 were recommended for surgery; out of 8 people taking azithromycin (noting the data lists 8 as the starting count for this comparison), 6 were recommended for surgery. In the six-week treatment groups: out of 5 people taking doxycycline, 2 were recommended for surgery; out of 8 people taking azithromycin, 4 were recommended for surgery. These numbers reflect what the treating doctors recorded based on each patient's ongoing symptoms and scan or camera results after treatment. It is important to note that the group sizes in this trial were very small, which means these figures should be understood only as the raw numbers recorded — not as broad conclusions about either antibiotic. No secondary outcome data appears to have been reported in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02194062 · results posted 16 March 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 32 people across three groups, all of whom had sinusitis. The three groups were: those using a Fluticasone nasal spray (10 people), those using a Budesonide liquid rinse while keeping their head upright (10 people), and those using a Budesonide liquid rinse while leaning their head forward (12 people). The trial measured two things: first, a symptom questionnaire called the SNOT-22, where a higher score means a person reported feeling more unwell (scored out of 110); and second, how the inside of the nose looked under a small camera (called nasal endoscopy), rated on a scale where a higher score means the nose appeared more severely affected. Not all participants finished the study — 8, 8, and 7 people completed it in each group respectively. The reported data shows the following SNOT-22 scores at the end of the study: the Fluticasone nasal spray group had an average score of 31.5, the Budesonide head-upright group had an average score of 10.29, and the Budesonide head-forward group had an average score of 15.88. For the nasal endoscopy camera scores, the reported data shows the Fluticasone group averaged 2.69, the Budesonide head-upright group averaged 0.50, and the Budesonide head-forward group averaged 1.13. These are the numbers as submitted; no further breakdown of the results, such as scores at the start of the trial for comparison, was included in the reported data on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02218307 · results posted 9 March 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at people with chronic rhinosinusitis (long-term inflammation of the sinuses and nasal passages). A total of 68 participants took part — 34 received a nasal treatment containing mupirocin (an antibiotic ointment) and 34 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). By the end of the study, 25 people in the mupirocin group and 33 in the placebo group had completed the trial; 9 people in the mupirocin group and 1 in the placebo group did not finish. The reported data shows that the trial used two questionnaires to measure how participants felt about their sinus-related symptoms. The first was the SNOT-20, a 20-question survey where each question is scored from 1 to 5 (with higher scores meaning worse symptoms), giving a total possible score of 0 to 100. At the end of the study, the mupirocin group reported an average score of 23, while the placebo group reported an average score of 21 — with lower numbers meaning fewer or less bothersome symptoms. The second questionnaire was a Visual Analog Scale (a simple sliding-scale rating) for nasal blockage or congestion, also scored from 0 to 100 where 100 means the worst possible blockage. The reported data shows the mupirocin group scored an average of 24.8 and the placebo group scored an average of 26.4 on this scale. It is worth noting that the trial did not report information about whether these differences between the two groups were considered meaningful by the researchers. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01525849 · results posted 24 February 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 151 people with sinus problems — 76 assigned to a procedure called Balloon Sinus Dilation (BSD) and 75 assigned to a more traditional surgical approach called Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS). The trial was measuring two main things: how much participants' sinus symptoms changed over time (using a 20-question symptom survey called the SNOT-20, where a lower score means fewer or less severe symptoms), and how many follow-up clinic visits involving nasal cleaning (called "debridements") each person needed after their procedure. By the end of the study, 71 people in the BSD group and 59 in the FESS group had completed all follow-up. The reported data shows that both groups had similar reductions in their symptom survey scores. On average, BSD participants' SNOT-20 scores dropped by 1.59 points from their starting score, while FESS participants' scores dropped by 1.60 points — essentially the same change in both groups. When it came to post-procedure clinic cleaning visits, the reported data shows BSD participants averaged 0.23 visits per person, compared to 1.03 visits per person in the FESS group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 1 participant in each group needed a repeat sinus procedure. The number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event (an unexpected harmful event considered related to the device or procedure) was reported as zero in both groups. The reported data also shows that BSD participants returned to normal activities in an average of 1.7 days, compared to 5.0 days for FESS participants. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02454608 · results posted 28 December 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02454608) involved two main phases. In the first phase — a double-blind period (meaning neither participants nor researchers knew who received which treatment) — 15 people were in the Treatment group and 14 were in the Control group, and all 15 in the Treatment group completed this phase compared with 12 in the Control group. After this, 29 participants moved into an open-label period (where everyone knew what was being given), though only 10 of those 29 completed that second phase. The trial was measuring sinonasal symptoms — that is, symptoms related to the nose and sinuses — using a combination of patient-reported questionnaires and scores assessed by clinicians. The reported data shows the following changes in scores from the start of the trial to the end of the double-blind period. On the SNOT-22 questionnaire (a symptom rating scale from 0 to 110, where higher means worse), the Treatment group's average score changed by −27.3 points, while the Control group's average changed by +0.4 points. On a separate 0–100 visual scale where participants rated their own symptoms, the Treatment group showed a change of −44.03 points and the Control group showed −6.07 points. For the clinician-assessed Lund-Kennedy Score (0–12, higher is worse), the Treatment group changed by −1.3 and the Control group by −0.25. For the Lund-McKay Score — a CT scan-based score (0–24, higher is worse) — the reported values were 12.5 for the Treatment group and 17.7 for the Control group; it is not entirely clear from the submitted data whether these represent changes or end-point scores, so this figure should be interpreted with caution. Heart rate and blood pressure were also recorded, though the data submitted does not include the context needed to draw conclusions from those figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02278484 · results posted 7 December 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 participants, and all 50 completed the study — none dropped out. The trial involved children with sinus problems who underwent a procedure called balloon sinus dilation, where a small balloon is gently inflated inside the sinus passages. The study was measuring whether the balloon device could be successfully used to open the sinuses, whether any serious complications occurred, and how participants' sinus-related quality of life changed over time. The reported data shows that out of all the sinus dilation attempts made during the procedures, 157 were recorded as technically successful — meaning the device was delivered to the target sinus, inflated, deflated, and removed as intended. The reported data also shows that zero participants experienced a serious complication related to the device or procedure, and zero participants needed any additional or follow-up sinus surgery during the study period. For quality of life, caregivers completed a sinus symptom survey (called the SN-5) before and after the procedure, where scores range from 1 (best) to 7 (worst). The reported data shows an average change of −2.9 points, meaning scores moved in the direction of fewer reported symptoms on that scale. It is worth noting that this trial had only one group — everyone received the balloon sinus dilation procedure — so there was no comparison group receiving a different or no treatment. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02284347 · results posted 24 August 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02284347) involved 51 people who took part, with 48 completing the study and 3 not completing it. The trial tested a medical device called the NuVent™, which is used during sinus procedures. The study was measuring two main things: how well the device could be guided to the right spot inside the sinuses and how easily it could open up the sinus passages, as well as tracking any unwanted events that might be linked to the device. The reported data shows that across the participants, 121 sinuses were successfully navigated to the desired treatment location and had the sinus opening dilated as intended. For the primary safety measurement — which looked at any unwanted events directly linked to the device, or where the cause could not be ruled out — the reported number was zero. Separately, a secondary measurement tracked the broader rate of any unwanted events among participants (regardless of cause); the reported data shows that 18% of participants experienced at least one such event. No further breakdown of those events was provided in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00396162 · results posted 4 August 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 77 people in total — 39 in the probiotic group and 38 in the placebo (dummy pill) group. The trial ran for eight weeks and was measuring nasal and sinus symptoms using a tool called the SNOT-20, which is a questionnaire where a score of 0 means no symptoms and 100 means the worst possible symptoms. The trial also tracked side effects, antibiotic use, and steroid nasal spray use during the eight weeks. The reported data shows that, on average, people in the probiotic group had a reduction of 1.8 points in their SNOT-20 symptom score over the eight weeks, while people in the placebo group had a reduction of 5.5 points. For side effects, 14 participants in the probiotic group and 17 in the placebo group reported at least one side effect. Regarding antibiotic use, the placebo group used antibiotics for an average of 1.9 days, compared to 0.8 days in the probiotic group. For steroid nasal spray use, the probiotic group averaged 2.8 days of use, while the placebo group averaged 0.4 days. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01608308 · results posted 4 September 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 62 people who were randomly placed into one of two groups — 31 received intravenous acetaminophen (a painkiller given through a drip) and 31 were in a control group (who did not receive this treatment). All 31 people in the acetaminophen group completed the study, while 29 of the 31 in the control group completed it. The trial was looking at pain levels after surgery, as well as things like the use of additional pain relief medicines and some physical measurements taken in the recovery period. The reported data shows that when pain was measured using a 0–10 scale (where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst possible pain), both groups scored 0 at one time point. At another time point, the acetaminophen group still scored 0, while the control group scored 2. For additional pain relief after surgery, the acetaminophen group used an average of 1.5 doses of morphine compared to 2.5 doses in the control group. During surgery, 9 people in the acetaminophen group and 4 people in the control group received an extra pain medicine called fentanyl. Regarding nausea after surgery, 13 people in the acetaminophen group and 10 in the control group experienced it. Average blood pressure readings in the recovery period were also recorded — the acetaminophen group had a top-number (systolic) blood pressure of 133 mmHg versus 144 mmHg in the control group, and a bottom-number (diastolic) reading of 75 mmHg versus 78.3 mmHg. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00912405 · results posted 20 April 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 50 people who had a device called the Sinexus Intranasal Splint placed inside their nasal sinuses. The trial was measuring how often the device could be successfully placed, and whether any serious reactions to the device occurred in the sinus tissue. Forty-five participants completed the study, while five did not finish. The reported data shows that out of the sinuses where placement was attempted, 90 were recorded as successful placements. For the main safety measure — tracking any serious adverse local tissue responses (meaning significant harmful reactions in the sinus tissue) — 6 sinuses had such a response recorded. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that zero participants experienced a significant rise in eye pressure (intra-ocular pressure), which was one of the eye-related safety checks carried out. Separately, only 1 sinus was recorded as having a significant post-operative adhesion — meaning scar-like tissue joining structures inside the nose in a way considered clinically meaningful on the grading scale used in the study. It is worth noting that the data does not report the total number of sinuses attempted, so the full context for some of these numbers cannot be determined from the information provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01253577 · results posted 13 April 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01253577) enrolled 105 participants, all of whom received a sinus stent implant. The trial was a single-group study where each participant received two implants — one coated with a drug on one side of their sinuses, and one without the drug coating on the other side. This design allowed a direct comparison between the two sides within the same person. The trial was measuring things like whether the sinuses needed further medical procedures after the operation, whether there were any notable changes in eye pressure (a safety measure sometimes monitored when certain medications are used near the sinuses), and whether polyp regrowth occurred. Of the 105 people who started, 102 completed the study. The reported data shows that 33.3% of sinuses on the drug-coated implant side required some form of follow-up intervention (such as further surgery to clear scar tissue or a course of steroid tablets), compared with 46.9% of sinuses on the non-coated implant side. For the eye pressure safety measure, the reported data shows that 0% of participants experienced a clinically significant rise in eye pressure (defined in the study as a rise of more than 10 mmHg on the drug-coated side but not the other side). Regarding polyp regrowth, 18.8% of sinuses on the drug-coated side developed significant polyps, compared with 34.1% of sinuses on the non-coated side. These figures are percentages of sinuses (not always of individual people), and the study was designed to compare the two sides rather than to compare against a separate group of participants who received no treatment at all. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00645762 · results posted 29 July 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 71 people who were treated using the FinESS Sineus System Balloon Dilation procedure, which is a type of balloon-based sinus procedure. Of those 71 participants, 67 completed the study and 4 did not finish. The trial was measuring three things: whether any complications related to the device or procedure occurred, whether the treated sinus opening (the area where the sinuses drain) remained open three months after the procedure as seen on a CT scan, and whether participants' sinus-related symptoms changed over 12 months using a standard symptom questionnaire called the SNOT-20. The reported data shows that, out of all participants, 1 person experienced a complication considered to be related to the device or procedure. For the CT scan check at three months, the reported data shows that 106 sinus openings (across all treated participants) were recorded as remaining open — noting that some participants may have had more than one opening treated. Regarding the symptom questionnaire, the SNOT-20 uses a scale where lower numbers mean fewer problems; participants rated each item from 0 (no problem) to 5 (as bad as it can be). The reported data shows an average score change of −1.8 from the start of the study to 12 months later. The trial's own description notes that a reduction of at least 0.8 is considered both statistically significant (meaning unlikely to be due to chance) and clinically meaningful by the study's standards. It is worth noting that this trial had only one group — there was no separate comparison or control group — so all figures reflect only the people who received the balloon dilation procedure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00465530 · results posted 29 May 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 40 people in total — 21 were assigned to rinse their sinuses once daily with a saline (salt water) solution containing an antibiotic called gentamicin, while 19 used a plain saline rinse without any antibiotic. Each group rinsed with 40 mL into each nostril. The trial was measuring two main things: changes in sinus appearance on a CT scan (a type of detailed X-ray), and changes in overall quality of life related to sinus symptoms. The reported data shows that both groups had small reductions in their CT scan scores over the course of the trial. CT scores were measured using a system where a lower score means less blockage in the sinuses — a score of 0 means no blockage, and a score of 2 means the sinus is completely blocked. The reported changes in CT scores across different sinus areas ranged from around −0.50 to −1.06 for the gentamicin-plus-saline group, and from around −0.50 to −0.79 for the saline-only group, meaning both groups showed some reduction in measured blockage. For quality of life, participants rated their symptoms on a scale from 0 to 7, where a higher number means a worse problem. The reported data shows the saline-only group had a change of 0.69 and the gentamicin-plus-saline group had a change of 1.38, suggesting both groups reported some improvement in quality of life scores during the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00939471 · results posted 17 August 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 44 children (all in a single group who received the balloon sinus procedure). Of those, 33 completed the study and 11 did not finish. The trial was measuring two main things: whether any problems directly caused by the balloon device occurred over 12 months, and whether children's sinus symptom scores changed after the procedure. There was no comparison group — everyone in the study received the same treatment. The reported data shows that zero device-related problems were recorded over the 12-month follow-up period. For sinus symptoms, the trial used a questionnaire called the SN-5, which is scored between 1 and 7 — a lower score is meant to indicate fewer symptoms. The reported average reduction in score from before the procedure to 52 weeks afterwards was 2.00 points. On the secondary measures, the reported data shows that the balloon successfully reached and opened the targeted sinus openings in approximately 90.9% of cases. Around 68.3% of participants were reported to have used less sinus medication at their last recorded check-in. Zero additional procedures (such as irrigation or cleaning) were reported as needed after the initial treatment. The reported average number of days children missed school during the 12-month follow-up was 5.75 days. It is worth noting that this trial had no comparison group, so the numbers above describe what was recorded for this one group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00871286 · results posted 18 January 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 40 people in total, split into two groups of 20. One group had a CT scan of their sinuses *before* receiving medical advice ("Pre-tx"), and the other group had their CT scan *after* receiving medical advice ("Post-tx"). The trial was measuring two things: how many people in each group followed through with the medical recommendations they were given, and how many people in each group actually went ahead and had their CT sinus scan done. Of the 20 people in the post-treatment group, 6 did not complete the study, while all 20 in the pre-treatment group completed it. The reported data shows the following numbers. For following medical recommendations: all 20 participants in the pre-scan group complied, compared with 10 out of 20 in the post-scan group. For actually having the CT scan done: all 20 participants in the pre-scan group had their scan, compared with 9 out of 20 in the post-scan group. No other outcome figures were included in the submitted results data beyond these counts. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full Chronic Rhinosinusitis page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.