Loading…

Comparing the severity of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms before versus during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Background COVID‐19 measures such as masking, social distancing, and staying indoors may mitigate chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) symptoms. We evaluate whether these measures correlated with improved symptoms in patients with CRS. Methods This retrospective study compared SNOT‐22 survey data from the N...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology 2022-12, Vol.7 (6), p.1704-1711
Main Authors: Lin, Jasmine S., Tan, Bruce, Yeh, Chen, Kern, Robert, Conley, David, Welch, Kevin, Peters, Anju, Smith, Stephanie
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background COVID‐19 measures such as masking, social distancing, and staying indoors may mitigate chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) symptoms. We evaluate whether these measures correlated with improved symptoms in patients with CRS. Methods This retrospective study compared SNOT‐22 survey data from the Northwestern CRS Registry at the time of enrollment and at years 1–5 of follow‐up. The final sample consisted of 1826 SNOT‐22 surveys for 598 patients. April 10, 2020 to December 31, 2021 was considered "during the pandemic" and prior to March 11, 2020 was considered "pre‐pandemic." Wilcoxon test was used to compare SNOT22 at enrollment pre‐pandemic versus during pandemic. Separate linear mixed models were performed to estimate SNOT22 at 1 to 5 years after enrollment pre‐pandemic versus during pandemic. Results Subjects enrolled during the pandemic had worse SNOT22 scores than those enrolled pre‐pandemic (53 vs. 42, p = .0024). Total SNOT‐22 scores were improved during the pandemic than before the pandemic at 1 year follow‐up (18.17 vs. 12.22, p = .001). This effect persists when evaluating the nasal (7.33 vs. 5.13, p = .003), sleep (2.63 vs. 1.39, p = .008), function (1.40 vs. 0.72, p = .015), and emotion (0.77 vs. 0.17, p 
ISSN:2378-8038
2378-8038
DOI:10.1002/lio2.935