Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing dupilumab and aspirin desensitization therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease

Comparative Effectiveness of Dupilumab Versus Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Polyps: Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current treatment paradigms recommend surgical intervention when conventional medical management proves ineffective in resolving chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the efficacy of dupilumab and functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp (CRSwNP) over time.

METHODS

Studies comparing CRSwNP patients who received dupilumab with those who underwent FESS were included. Outcome measures included the nasal congestion score (NCS), Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test-40 (UPSIT-40), and nasal polyp score (NPS). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 4 studies with 724 participants were included. The dupilumab group had a superior NCS, but an inferior NPS, compared to the FESS group during the follow-up period. The SNOT-22 score of the dupilumab group was inferior to that of the FESS group until 6 months posttreatment, but the scores were similar at around 1 year. A similar trend was observed for the UPSIT-40 score, but the score of the dupilumab group was higher at around 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery was more effective than dupilumab for several months after treatment. However, at 1 year after treatment, the effects of the 2 treatments became similar, with greater olfactory improvement seen in the dupilumab group.

The Burden of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease: Interplay Between Quality of Life and Economic Implications

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD) presents a significant challenge in clinical management owing to recalcitrant disease with accompanying profound impacts on patient quality of life. Although asthma represents a significant component of this disease, quality of life disruptions are driven primarily by recalcitrant sinonasal problems, olfactory dysfunction, and the associated psychosocial and dietary implications. This review delves into specific quality of life metrics used to assess NSAID-ERD and the associated health care burden and financial implications of this disease, offering insights into the comparative challenges in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps when available. The article reviews the associated costs and cost-effectiveness of NSAID-ERD-directed therapies, including endoscopic sinus surgery, aspirin desensitization, and biologic therapy. Although some of these emerging treatment approaches show promise, they also present numerous unanswered questions, reflecting the dynamic nature of this field. As the landscape of NSAID-ERD management continues to evolve, this review provides insights into the challenges faced by clinicians and underscores the need for further research to optimize patient care and quality of life outcomes.

[Does aspirin therapy after desensitization still have a role in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in the era of biologics?]

The prevalence of analgesic intolerance syndrome (AIS), internationally known as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), is reported to be 0.5-5.7% in the general population. The disease often begins with nasal symptoms, which are later joined by chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), asthma, and respiratory hypersensitivity reactions following use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the setting of chronic respiratory disease, the type 2 inflammatory endotype is predominant in approximately 80% of patients with CRSwNP, rendering biologics directed against interleukin (IL)-4, IL‑5, IL-13, and IgE of high clinical interest, particularly in patients with severe CRSwNP and NERD. NERD is often associated with CRSwNP and asthma. Patients with CRSwNP and NERD have been treated, among other therapies, with aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD). With the approval of monoclonal antibodies for CRSwNP and asthma, the question arises as to what extent ATAD, which is associated with undesirable side effects, is still useful in the treatment of CRSwNP. In this manuscript, the use of ATAD in CRSwNP patients is discussed from different medical and socioeconomic points of view, both alternatively to or in combination with monoclonal antibodies. Accordingly, both ATAD and biologics continue to play a supporting role in modern treatment of CRSwNP in NERD patients, and should be used judiciously to complement each other.

[Biologic therapy in patients with severe NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease and previous aspirin desensitization : Results of a multicentric study]

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a type‑2 inflammatory disease of the upper airways, with severe impairment of quality of life. Persons affected by NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD) usually present with highly dynamic recurrence of polyps and disease despite prior treatment with sinus surgeries, oral corticosteroids, and aspirin desensitization (ATAD). Biologic therapy has fundamentally changed the choice of therapeutic concept; however, limited data exist on subgroups such as NERD patients. The aim of the current article is to report on a multicenter retrospective study on add-on therapy with dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab in patients with NERD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients (NERD+, status after ATAD) in three reference centers in Germany (Munich, Mainz, Berlin). Subjective and objective parameters were collected at 4, 8, and 12 months after biologic therapy initiation in accordance with current EPOS/EUFOREA (European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps/European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases) guidelines. Biologic agents were chosen depending on availability and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Treatment was commenced in 122 patients meeting the criteria for CRSwNP and NERD. The endoscopic polyp score, SNOT-22 questionnaire score, visual analogue scoring of total symptoms/severity of disease, and sense of smell (psychophysical testing with Sniffin'Sticks/Brief Smell Identification Test, B‑SIT; Sensonics, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ, USA) improved significantly after 4 and 12 months of add-on therapy (p < 0.0001). All three biologic agents significantly improved one or more disease parameter. Adverse events were not life threatening but led to change of biologic agent in 4 cases. Patients rated biologic therapy significantly better than ATAD, with improved long-term disease control.

CONCLUSION

Add-on biologic therapy is effective, safe, and widely accepted among CRSwNP + NERD patients. Future studies might allow for personalized algorithms with sequential surgery, ATAD, and/or biologic therapy.

Antibody-based therapeutics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a prevalent inflammatory condition with heterogenous underlying endotypes, the most common being type 2 mediated inflammation. Several biologics have been developed to target specific pro-inflammatory cytokines and their receptors with proven efficacy in both quantitative and qualitative outcomes in patients with severe uncontrolled disease. However, there is an ongoing debate on the role of biologics relative to conventional therapies for CRSwNP and their efficacy in patient subgroups with non-polyp type 2 disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the evidence on the efficacy and safety of biologics in CRSwNP, recommendations for their use, and discusses the broader economic factors influencing their application in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging real-life data demonstrating the variable efficacy of the available biologics for patients with CRSwNP, coupled with the high cost compared to conventional therapies such as surgery, renders biologics to be considered as an add-on therapy in the majority of cases. However, ongoing research into increasing biologic dose intervals and novel therapies targeting alternative pathways may offer a more cost-effective and sustainable option in future.

Eosinophilic esophagitis in the era of biologics

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory, disabling disorder characterized by prominent eosinophilic inflammation of the esophagus, leading to troublesome symptoms including dysphagia and food impaction. The natural history of EoE is poorly known, but it may lead to esophageal strictures. The therapeutic armamentarium is expected to grow in the near future, especially due to the availability of novel biological therapies targeting crucial inflammatory pathways of EoE.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss the main clinical features and natural history of EoE, focusing on the current therapeutic strategies, as well as past and current trials investigating biologics for its treatment.

EXPERT OPINION

Dupilumab has been the first approved biologic drug for the treatment of EoE; long-term studies assessing how it could change the natural history of EoE are awaited. Novel biological drugs or other molecules are currently under study and could change the current treatment algorithms in the near future. Proper drug positioning and long term 'exit strategies' are yet to be defined.

EUFOREA/EPOS2020 statement on the clinical considerations for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps care

Following the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) treatment algorithm for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), patients suffering from severe uncontrolled CRSwNP are recommended to receive oral corticosteroids, (revision) sinus surgery, systemic biologicals and/or aspirin treatment after desensitization (ATAD). Given the major differences in indications, outcomes, practical considerations, risks and costs of these key pillars of treatment, there is a growing need to define criteria for each treatment option and list the clinically relevant and major considerations for them. This EUFOREA document therefore provides an expert panel overview of the expected outcomes, specific considerations and (contra)indications of the five major treatment arms of severe uncontrolled CRSwNP: oral corticosteroids, primary and revision sinus surgery, biological treatment and ATAD. This overview of treatment considerations is needed to allow physicians and patients to consider the different options in the context of providing optimal and personalized care for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP. In conclusion, the five major treatment options for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP have intrinsic advantages, specific indications and considerations that are of importance to the patient, the physician and the society. This EUFOREA statement supports the unmet need to define criteria for the indication of every treatment pillar of CRSwNP.

[Results of a survey on the current management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Germany]

INTRODUCTION

With a prevalence of 0.55% to 4%, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a relevant part of the daily work of German otolaryngologists. The aim of the questionnaire-based data collection was to assess the current treatment status of CRSwNP in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For this purpose, 24 questions within an anonymized online questionnaire were sent to all German ENT departments.

RESULTS

Of 160 contacted ENT departments, 50 participated in the survey (31.3%). Among these, 76% performed more than 100 sinus surgeries annually and 38% treated more than 50 patients with biologics. Saline irrigations (80%) and intranasal glucocorticoids (GCS, 96%) were the most common conservative therapies. Systemic GCSs (52%) and intranasal GCS irrigation (20%) were less common. 80% of departments used biologics in the therapy of CRSwNP with an overall preference for dupilumab (70%). For therapy of aspirin intolerance, biologics (52%) were preferred to aspirin desensitization (26%). Prior to treatment with biologics clinical workup included the nasal polyp score (90%), the SNOT-22 questionnaire (84%), surrogate markers of type 2 inflammation (60%-72%), and computer tomography (50%). Final treatment success was assessed after 24 weeks (50%).

CONCLUSION

Mostly, the responding departments followed German and European recommendations for diagnosis and therapy of CRSwNP. Therapy with biologics is widely used. The value of preoperative systemic GCS and the frequent performance of CT before initiation of therapy with a biologic should be debated in regard to its currently widespread use.

Should Biologics Be Used Before Aspirin Desensitization in Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease?

There has been a paradigm shift in the management of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). It started in 2015 when the first biologic was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for severe eosinophilic asthma. Thus, there emerged a new era in the treatment of patients with type 2-mediated airway diseases. This has led to an increasing number of options for patients, undoubtably a great thing, but has left clinicians without a clear answer for how to balance the therapies that exist for AERD, what to recommend for treatment, and how to best assess the benefits and risks of each therapy. This paper aims to explore these benefits and risks, and to provide a roadmap for future studies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Canada

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are the three biologics currently approved for use in CRSwNP in Canada. Despite evidence of efficacy, their cost-effectiveness, which is a key factor influencing prescribing patterns, has not yet been compared to each other.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed using a Decision Tree Markov analysis. A third-party healthcare payer perspective and a 10-year time horizon was used. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab were each compared to each other.

RESULTS

Omalizumab was the most cost-effective biologic using current estimates of cost and efficacy in CRSwNP. Using omalizumab as a baseline, dupilumab had an ICER of $235,305/QALY. Mepolizumab was dominated by omalizumab and dupilumab at the current drug prices and estimates of efficacy. Sensitivity analyses determined that when increasing the WTP threshold to $150,000/QALY, dupilumab became cost-effective compared to omalizumab in 22.5% of simulation scenarios. Additionally, altering dosing frequency had a significant effect on cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

When comparing the relative cost-effectiveness of biologics in recalcitrant CRSwNP, omalizumab currently appears to be the most cost-effective option. Future reductions in drug prices, adjustments to currently approved dosing regimens, better patient selection, and improvements in sinus surgery outcomes will challenge the current cost-effectiveness models and necessitate reassessment as treatments for CRSwNP continue to evolve.

Management paradigms for chronic rhinosinusitis in individuals with asthma: An evidence-based review with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant morbidity associated with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in individuals with asthma (CRSwA), there is a paucity of codified, evidence-based management strategies for CRS in this population.

METHODS

Using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Review Databases, a systematic review was performed covering management strategies for CRSwA. A total of 5903 articles were screened, and 70 were included for full-text analysis. After application of exclusion criteria, 53 articles comprised the qualitative synthesis. The level of evidence was graded and benefit-harm assessments, as well as value judgment and recommendations, were provided RESULTS: Strong evidence confirms the benefit of oral and topical medications on sinonasal-specific outcomes in individuals with CRSwA; there is low-grade evidence demonstrating that these agents improve lung function and/or asthma control. Moderate to strong evidence suggests that endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) improves both sinonasal- and asthma-specific quality of life. Although there is insufficient to low evidence to indicate that ESS improves pulmonary function in this population, data indicate a positive impact of this intervention on asthma control. Biologic medications strongly improve both subjective and objective sinonasal- and asthma-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports managing CRS in individuals with CRSwA in a stepwise fashion, starting with traditional nonbiologic oral and topical medication, and escalating to second-line treatments, such as ESS and biologics. Optimal treatment of individuals who have CRSwA often requires concurrent, directed management of asthma, as not all CRS interventions impact asthma status.

Successful Long-Term Aspirin Desensitization in a Pilot With Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease

Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a triad of asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), and adverse respiratory reactions to the ingestion of aspirin/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.1 Patients with AERD are frequently plagued with CRSwNP that is difficult to manage with systemic steroids, nasal steroids, and surgical polypectomy, often requiring multiple endoscopic sinus surgeries and frequent otolaryngology follow-up.2,3 There are an abundance of therapies to treat CRSwNP in the setting of AERD, all with varying costs, efficacies, and indications for treatment.4 While limited by side effect profile, aspirin desensitization remains an effective, low-cost treatment for patients with CRSwNP and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug sensitivity.5 We describe a case of an active duty U.S. Air Force pilot with AERD whose CRSwNP was successfully treated with aspirin desensitization without detrimental effect on his flying status.

The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

The last decade has seen significant developments in the field of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Translational research borne from knowledge of the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammatory disease of the lower airways and the strong association with CRSwNP, has led to major therapeutic breakthroughs, with phase 3 trials of four biologics completed at the time of writing, and more underway. This article explores the evidence behind biologics for CRSwNP, the guidance on their use and the health economic factors influencing their position amongst the established therapeutic options for this common chronic condition.

Canadian multidisciplinary expert consensus on the use of biologics in upper airways: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective.

METHODS

A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61.

RESULTS

After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease.

CONCLUSION

This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

Monoclonal antibody or aspirin desensitization in NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD)?

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is a clinical syndrome characterized by nasal polyposis, asthma, and intolerance to aspirin/NSAID. It affects approximately 15% cases of severe asthma, 10% of nasal polyps and 9% of rhinosinusitis. N-ERD results in associated asthma exacerbations, oral corticosteroids bursts, corticosteroid-dependent disease, and multiple endoscopic sinus surgeries. Unknown influences cause polyp epithelium to release alarmins, such as IL-33 and TSLP. These cytokines activate lymphoid cells, both Th2 and ILC2, to release cytokines such as IL5, IL4 and IL13, resulting in complex type 2 inflammation involving mast cells, eosinophils and platelets. Arachidonic acid released from such cells is metabolized into mediators. N-ERD is characterized by an imbalance in eicosanoid levels, especially CysLTs, PDG and PGE2. Patients with N-ERD present nasal symptoms (congestion, hyposmia/anosmia, nasal discharge) and lower airways symptoms (cough, sneezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness), anosmia, severe hyposmia as well as severe asthma which impacts the quality of life in this disease and leads to safety concerns in patients daily lives. Despite the variety of treatment strategies, the likelihood of recurrence of symptoms is high in patients with N-ERD. The most important strategies for treating N-ERD are listed as following: drug therapies, aspirin desensitization, monoclonal antibodies and other therapies associated. N-ERD treatment remains a major challenge in the current situation. Selecting the appropriate patient for aspirin desensitization, monoclonal antibodies or both is essential. This review provides an overview on aspirin desensitization and biologics in N-ERD and might help in decision making from both the perspective of the physician and patient. Patient characteristics, safety, efficacy, health care costs, but also patient preferences are all factors to take into account when it comes to a choice between biologics or aspirin desensitization.

Cost-utility analysis of dupilumab compared with endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Evaluation in Colombia, a developing country

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) compromise's respiratory function, sleep, concentration, work capacity and quality of life, generating high costs for patient and health systems. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-utility of Dupilumab compared to endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with CRSwNP.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We developed a model-based cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Colombian health system to compare Dupilumab vs endoscopic nasal surgery in patients with difficult-to-treat CRSwNP. Transition probabilities were extracted from the published literature about CRSwNP and costing was based on local tariffs. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis for outcomes, probabilities, and costs (10.000 Monte Carlo simulations).

RESULTS

The cost of dupilumab ($ 142.919) was 7.8 times higher than nasal endoscopic sinus surgery ($ 18.347). In terms of QALYs, surgery generates better results than Dupilumab: 11.78 vs. 9.05 QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the health system, endoscopic sinus surgery for the management of CRSwNP is a dominant alternative in all the analyzed scenarios compared to the use of Dupilumab. From a cost-utility point of view, the use of dupilumab should be considered when the patient requires multiple surgeries or when there is a contraindication for surgeries performance.

Clinical guidance for the use of dupilumab in eosinophilic esophagitis: A yardstick

The Joint Task Force for the American Academy of Allergy Asthma Immunology and American College of Allergy Asthma Immunology and the American Gastroenterology Association recently published guidelines for the management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Because the guideline was published, dupilumab became the first and only medication to gain regulatory approval for the treatment of EoE. This expert opinion document provides a framework for how the clinician can consider using dupilumab in the treatment strategy for patients with EoE.

What's New in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease: A Brief Review

Background

Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a chronic condition characterized by the presence of asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, and sensitivity to aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Diagnosis is based on careful clinical history and physical examination, characteristic laboratory and radiographic findings, and, in unclear cases, aspirin challenge. Established treatment is founded on comprehensive endoscopic sinus surgery followed by topical steroids and aspirin desensitization. T2 biologics are now available for refractory cases.

Objective

To summarize the historic literature on AERD, its diagnosis and treatment options, as well as to review the most current publications on the topic and explore areas for future research.

Methods

A literature review utilizing the PubMed database was performed.

Results

Seminal journal articles regarding the diagnosis and treatment of AERD were reviewed with close attention to evidence-based protocols and knowledge gaps in the field as areas for future research.

Conclusion

AERD is a complex disease which requires careful diagnostic work-up and coordinated care between the allergist and rhinologist to facilitate optimal treatment outcomes.

Updates in biologic therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) associated with type 2 inflammation and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) can be difficult to control with standard medical therapy and sinus surgery. In this group, biologicals are potentially promising treatment options. The phase III clinical trials for omalizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab in CRSwNP have demonstrated favourable outcomes. Moving forward, direct comparisons among biologicals, refining patient selection criteria for specific biologicals, determining optimal treatment duration and monitoring long-term outcomes are areas of emerging interest. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from the recent 2 years on the role of biologicals in severe CRSwNP and N-ERD, and proposes an approach towards decision-making in their use.

Controversies in Allergy: Aspirin Desensitization or Biologics for Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease-How to Choose

Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) can be a frustratingly complex syndrome to treat. Until recently, standard medical and surgical therapies for patients' asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis were the primary treatment modalities available, combined with either complete avoidance of all aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, or aspirin desensitization and initiation of high-dose aspirin therapy. There are now several targeted respiratory biologics added to the available armament for patients with AERD and choosing between this ever-growing list of options can be daunting for both patients and their clinicians. This review includes our understanding and interpretation of the existing data for each option, along with our own approach to weighing the pros and cons of each treatment for individual patients.

Biologicals and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Severe Uncontrolled Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: An Economic Perspective

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a chronic disease with a high prevalence and high disease burden, and the lack of a cure. The socioeconomic burden of the disease is substantial and has been disproportionally increasing over past decades. Treatment is aimed at attaining disease control. Traditionally, topical corticosteroids, endoscopic sinus surgery, and oral corticosteroids are used to treat CRSwNP. The advent of biologics has revolutionized CRSwNP treatment, but these drugs are expensive. From an economic standpoint, it is worth debating whether biologics should be employed in patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP who fail to attain disease control with current therapies. This clinical commentary review provides an overview of the socioeconomic burden of chronic rhinosinusitis and treatment modalities, compares endoscopic sinus surgery versus biologics for severe CRSwNP, discusses management recommendations, and highlights future needs in this field. New ways to reduce costs of biologic treatments need to be explored to attain cost-effectiveness and provide patients who have severe CRSwNP with adequate treatment.

Current Insight into Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Phenotypes, Endotypes and Implications for Targeted Therapeutics

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is characterized by persistent locoregional mucosal inflammation of the paranasal sinuses and upper airway that has substantial associated health care costs¹. Personalized approaches to care that incorporate use of molecular biomarkers, phenotypes and inflammatory endotypes is a major focus of research at this time, and the concurrent rise of targeted therapeutics and biologic therapies has the potential to rapidly advance care and improve outcomes. Recent findings suggest that improved understanding of CRS phenotypic and endotypic heterogeneity, and incorporation of these characteristics into clinical care pathways, may facilitate more effective selection of surgical and/or therapeutic interventions². Ultimately, these personalized approaches have the potential to target specific inflammatory pathways, increase efficacy, reduce costs, and limit side effects. This review summarizes recent advances in the identification and characterization of CRS phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers and reviews potential implications for targeted therapeutics.

Ethical dilemmas associated with the introduction of biologic treatments in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

This review considers ethical dilemmas which may present when introducing the use of biologic treatments alongside existing treatments in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Biologic therapies offer hope to patients with diseases recalcitrant to conventional therapies but are often significantly more expensive. Reducing the need for surgery may act as a disincentive for use within surgical specialities, while reimbursement for administration has the potential to encourage inappropriate use. Any treatment should be used considering the principles of beneficence (offering the most effective treatment to the patient) and non-maleficence (minimising the risk of harm); the challenges of comparing the different available treatment options are considered. Patient autonomy should be involved a process of shared decision making, but when a third-party payor is involved they may seek to place restrictions on access to treatments that limit the choice of both patient and physician. Such decisions are often based on the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments relative to standard of care; published models suggest that at current market prices, biologics are less cost-effective in all groups that standard care. Social justice (fair distribution of limited healthcare resources) therefore may mandate rationing of access. To this end, working as part of professional organisations or research groups, physicians often produce guidelines that help to identify those in greatest need of novel treatments. The challenges in creating and applying these guidelines are also considered.