Comparison of Different Biologics for Treating Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: A Network Analysis

Comparative safety of monoclonal antibodies in chronic inflammatory airway diseases (chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma): A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) targeting specific type 2 immune reactions have been developed as innovative therapeutic approaches for chronic inflammatory airway diseases, such as chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and asthma. However, the clinical safety of these MoAbs and how to choose them are not clear. Therefore, we aimed to assess the systemic drug- and dose-based safety of MoAbs in chronic airway inflammation using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies published in English between January 2009 and December 2022. Eligible studies must have clearly reported adverse events (AEs) among the MoAbs' safety data.

RESULTS

1). Regarding serious AEs, mepolizumab was significantly safer than placebo; in terms of permanent treatment discontinuation, reslizumab and dupilumab were significantly safer than benralizumab. 2). Regarding asthma worsening, dupilumab was associated with the best safety profile; was safer than dupilumab/300 mg/q2-4w. 3). In terms of injection-site reactions, dupilumab posed a higher risk than placebo; dupilumab/300 mg/qw posed a higher risk than dupilumab/300 mg/q2w and dupilumab/300 mg/q2-4w; lebrikizumab/250 mg/q4w posed a higher risk than lebrikizumab/37.5 mg/q4w; mepolizumab/100 mg/q4w posed a higher risk than mepolizumab/75 mg/q4w; benralizumab/30 mg/q4-8w posed a higher risk than benralizumab/20 mg/q4-8w. 4) In CRSwNP patients combined with asthma, the risks of experiencing AEs were not increased.

CONCLUSION

Overall, biologics are safe and well tolerated in chronic inflammatory airway disease. This drug- and dose-based NMA provides further evidence on the different safety profiles of different emerging MoAbs. This information may help guide rational drug use and provide clinical recommendations for choosing MoAbs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION (PROSPERO #CRD42023387610).

Efficacy of different biologics for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is a debate around the use of biological agents in the treatment of chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps. Therefore, this study's purpose was to assess the effectiveness of various biologics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

METHODS

A systematic and manual search was conducted for all relevant studies from inception to December 20, 2023. Two independent authors carried out the search, screening, assessment, and data extraction. Network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14 software.

RESULTS

Our analysis includes a comprehensive set of 19 studies. These studies compared the efficacy of four distinct biologic treatments. The results of reticulated Meta-analysis showed that Dupilumab (MD = - 1.85, 95% CI: - 2.47, - 1.24), Omalizumab (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI: - 1.90, - 0.70), Benralizumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.66, - 0.03) and Mepolizumab (MD = - 1.48, 95% CI: - 2.22, - 0.74) were superior to placebo from the nasal polyp score(NPS), Dupilumab (MD = - 12.56, 95% CI: - 22.49,- 2.63) was superior to placebo from the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22(SNOT-22)score, and Dupilumab (MD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 1.08, - 0.59) and Omalizumab (RR = - 0.51, 95% CI: - 0.83, - 0.19) were superior to placebo from the nasal congestion severity(NCS). In terms of cumulative sorting under the surface of the curve (SUCRA) values, Dupilumab was the best performer in the NPS (0.92), SNOT-22 score (0.70), and NCS (0.93); Four different biologics outperformed placebo in the NPS, SNOT-22 score, and NCS.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRSwNP, based on the efficacy (NPS, (SNOT-22) score, NCS) and, dupilumab is the most efficacious for CRSwNP.

Anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibody (CM310) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CROWNS-2): Rationale and design of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

Background

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a heterogeneous disease that affects a large proportion of the global population. The treatment of CRSwNP, especially eosinophilic CRSwNP (ECRSwNP), has always been of great obstacle. Our previous phase 2 trial showed that CM310, a monoclonal antibody that targets interleukin-4 receptor alpha, was both safe and effective in reducing the size of nasal polyps, improving symptom scores, and increasing the quality of life for those with severe ECRSwNP.

Objective

This phase 3 trial aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and immunogenicity of CM310 in participants with CRSwNP.

Result

The CROWNS-2 is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial. The study consisted of a screening/run-in period (up to 4 weeks), a treatment period (24-week double-blind treatment period plus 28-week maintenance period), and a safety follow-up period (8 weeks). The study planned to enroll 180 participants with CRSwNP (at least 60% of ECRSwNP) to receive CM310 300 mg/placebo every 2 weeks (Q2W) subcutaneously for a total of 12 doses in double-blind treatment period and 300 mg CM310 Q2W subcutaneously for a total of 14 doses in maintenance period. Enrolled participants continued to use mometasone furoate nasal spray throughout the study. The primary endpoints are a change from baseline in nasal polyp score and nasal congestion score at week 24 between CM310 and placebo in both ECRSwNP and CRSwNP.

Conclusion

The CROWNS-2 is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CM310 in patients with CRSwNP.

Trial registration

NCT05436275.

Real-World Adverse Events After Type 2 Biologic use in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the frequency and nature of adverse events related to type 2 biologic use in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), including dupilumab and mepolizumab.

METHODS

This is a single-institution retrospective study of real-world patient data. Patients were included if they have a diagnosis of CRSwNP, have undergone at least one endoscopic sinus surgery, and have taken at least two doses of dupilumab or mepolizumab between January 1, 2016, and July 1, 2023. Data collected include clinicodemographic information and past medical/surgical history. The primary outcomes are the incidence and types of adverse events. Adjusted odds ratio was calculated to compare the biologics using logistic regression. Risk factors for developing adverse events were investigated.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients on dupilumab and 51 patients on mepolizumab were included. Thirty-nine (45%) and 10 (20%) patients respectively encountered adverse events, which differed from phase 3 trial data. The adjusted odds ratio for adverse event rates between these two treatment groups was 3.8 (95% CI, 1.5-10.5). The most common adverse events for dupilumab were arthralgia (16%), rash (14%), and conjunctivitis or xerophthalmia (10%). The main adverse events for mepolizumab were headache (6%) and fatigue (6%). Seven dupilumab and three mepolizumab patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events. The average duration of treatment was 22.5 (range: 1-77) months for mepolizumab and 15.9 (range: 1-35) months for dupilumab.

CONCLUSION

Dupilumab and mepolizumab have distinct adverse event profiles. This study contributes to informing clinicians' decisions regarding the use of type 2 biologics in CRSwNP patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:3054-3059, 2024.

Anti-IL-4R versus anti-IL-5/5R after anti-IL-5/5R failure in asthma: An emulated target trial

BACKGROUND

Switching biologics is now common practice in severe eosinophilic asthma. After insufficient response to anti-IL-5 or 5 receptor (anti-IL-5/5R), the optimal switch between an anti-IL-4R mAb (interclass) or another anti-IL-5/5R drug (intraclass) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the effectiveness of these 2 strategies in asthma control in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and insufficient response to an anti-IL-5/5R mAb.

METHODS

We emulated a target randomized trial using observational data from the Recherche sur les AsthMes SEvèreS (RAMSES) cohort. Eligible patients were switched to an anti-IL-4R mAb or another anti-IL-5/5R drug after insufficient response to an anti-IL-5/5R mAb. The primary outcome was the change in Asthma Control Test score at 6 months.

RESULTS

Among the 2046 patients in the cohort, 151 were included in the study: 103 switched to an anti-IL-4R mAb and 48 to another anti-IL-5/5R. At 6 months, the difference in Asthma Control Test score improvement was not statistically significant (mean difference groups, 0.82 [-0.47 to 2.10], P = .213). The interclass group exhibited greater cumulative reduction in oral corticosteroid dose (Pinter-intra, -1.05 g [-1.76 to -0.34], P = .041). The interclass group had a better effect, although not significantly, on reducing exacerbations (Δinter-intra, -0.37 [-0.77 to 0.02], P = .124) and increasing lung function (FEV1) (126.8 mL [-12.7 to 266.4], P = .124).

CONCLUSIONS

After anti-IL-5/5R mAb insufficient response, switching to dupilumab demonstrated similar improvement in Asthma Control Test scores compared with intraclass switching. However, it appeared more effective in reducing oral corticosteroid use. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Severe hypereosinophilia in a patient treated with dupilumab and shift to mepolizumab: the importance of multidisciplinary management. A case report and literature review

Type 2 inflammation is a heterogeneous condition due to the complex activation of different immunological pathways. Rapid progress in research to evaluate the efficacy of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and asthma has led to the availability of effective therapeutic options. These drugs are safe, but temporary iatrogenic hypereosinophilia may sometimes be associated with clinical symptoms or organ damage. Here, we describe a case of severe hypereosinophilia in a patient with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and asthma treated with dupilumab and a subsequent therapeutic shift to mepolizumab that led to maintenance of symptom control and concomitant normalization of blood eosinophil count.

Study protocol: the biologics in severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps survey

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a frequent condition affecting approximately 2% of the population. Medical treatment consists long-term use of intranasal corticosteroids and short-term use of oral corticosteroids, in adjunct with saline solution rinses. Surgical management is proposed in patients who failed after medical treatment. In France, two biologics are reimbursed in case of severe uncontrolled CRSwNP despite medical treatment and endoscopic sinus surgery. Waiting for head-to-head biologics comparison, studies should report the efficacy and safety of biologics in large real-life cohorts. This study protocol describes the aims and methods of a prospective, observational, national, multicentric cohort of patients with CRSwNP treated with biologics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The BIOlogics in severe nasal POlyposis SurvEy is a French multicentre prospective observational cohort study. The main aim is to assess the efficacy and tolerance of biologics in patients with CRSwNP, with or without association with other type 2 diseases, and to determine the strategies in case of uncontrolled disease under biologics. Patients over 18 years old requiring biologics for CRSwNP in accordance with its marketing approval in France (ie, severe nasal polyposis, with lack of control under nasal corticosteroid, systemic corticosteroids and surgery) are invited to participate. Collected data include topical history of surgical procedures and biologics, medication and use of systemic corticosteroids, visual analogical scales for specific symptoms, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 questionnaire, nasal polyp score, asthma control test, Lund-Mackay score on CT scan and IgE concentration and eosinophilic count on blood sample.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05228041/DRI_2021/0030.

Brazilian guideline for the use of immunobiologicals in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps ‒ 2024 update

INTRODUCTION

Biologics targeting type 2 inflammation have revolutionized the way we treat patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP). Particularly in severe and difficult-to-control cases, these drugs have provided a new reality for these patients, allowing for the effective and safe treatment of extensive diseases that were not completely managed with the typical strategy of surgery and topical medications.

OBJECTIVES

The experience achieved with the approval of these medications by ANVISA for use in CRSwNP and the knowledge obtained regarding outcomes, adverse effects, and the ideal patient profile prompted the update of the previously published guideline, with a detailed review of the most recent scientific literature, the personal experiences of experts, and the adaptation to the reality of the Brazilian healthcare system, both public and private.

RESULTS

We proposed a new eligibility criterion for biologics in patients with CRSwNP based on four pillars of indication: the impact of the disease on the patient's life, whether in the presence of specific symptoms or in overall quality of life; the extent of sinonasal disease; the presence of type 2 comorbidities, considering other associated diseases that may also benefit from anti-T2 biologics, and the presence of biomarkers to define type 2 inflammation, especially those associated with worse disease prognoses.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative and pioneering method has two major advantages. First, it ensures a comprehensive evaluation of patients; second, it is flexible, as advancements in our understanding of the disease and changes in cost-effectiveness can be addressed by simply adjusting the required score for indication, without the need to modify the entire evaluation scheme.

World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

The eosinophilias encompass a broad range of non-hematologic (secondary or reactive) and hematologic (primary or clonal) disorders with the potential for end-organ damage.

DIAGNOSIS

Hypereosinophilia (HE) has generally been defined as a peripheral blood eosinophil count greater than 1.5 × 109/L, and may be associated with tissue damage. After the exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia, diagnostic evaluation of primary eosinophilias relies on a combination of various tests. They include morphologic review of the blood and marrow, standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, molecular testing and flow immunophenotyping to detect histopathologic or clonal evidence for an acute or chronic hematolymphoid neoplasm.

RISK STRATIFICATION

Disease prognosis relies on identifying the subtype of eosinophilia. After evaluation of secondary causes of eosinophilia, the 2022 World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification endorse a semi-molecular classification scheme of disease subtypes. This includes the major category "myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions" (MLN-eo-TK), and the MPN subtype, "chronic eosinophilic leukemia" (CEL). Lymphocyte-variant HE is an aberrant T-cell clone-driven reactive eosinophila, and idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diagnosis of exclusion.

RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY

The goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. For patients with milder forms of eosinophilia (e.g., <1.5 × 109/L) without symptoms or signs of organ involvement, a watch and wait approach with close follow-up may be undertaken. Identification of rearranged PDGFRA or PDGFRB is critical because of the exquisite responsiveness of these diseases to imatinib. Pemigatinib was recently approved for patients with relapsed or refractory FGFR1-rearranged neoplasms. Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for patients with lymphocyte-variant HE and HES. Hydroxyurea and interferon-α have demonstrated efficacy as initial treatment and in steroid-refractory cases of HES. Mepolizumab, an interleukin-5 (IL-5) antagonist monoclonal antibody, is approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration for patients with idiopathic HES. Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have been used for aggressive forms of HES and CEL, with outcomes reported for limited numbers of patients. Targeted therapies such as the IL-5 receptor antibody benralizumab, IL-5 monoclonal antibody depemokimab, and various tyrosine kinase inhibitors for MLN-eo-TK, are under active investigation.

[Decision-making in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in the era of biologics]

Chronic rhinosinusitis is one of the most common chronic diseases in the population. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in adults is predominantly characterized by a type 2 inflammatory endotype. If sufficient control cannot be achieved through primary drug therapy, surgical intervention is usually recommended as the next stage of treatment. Nowadays, various biologics are available that have been or will be approved for use in these patients. This review summarizes the presentations from the 29th Congress of the European Rhinologic Society in Sofia 2023 and the latest findings on decision-making in the treatment of CRSwNP. Standard therapy with medication and sinus surgery fails in some patients with CRSwNP. Biologics that act on the type 2 inflammatory pathway led to a reduction in the nasal polyp score (NPS), an improvement in nasal obstruction, and an improvement in quality of life without significant side effects. Biomarkers such as total IgE, serum eosinophils, and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) can provide indications of the success of the treatment. In summary, it can be said that for many patients with recurrent CRSwNP, a combination of paranasal sinus surgery and treatment with a biologic that is precisely tailored to the patient's endotype is the best option. However, the question of which surgical approach and which biologic at which time and for which patient is still ongoing and requires further studies.

Pathogenesis-based application of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis: Current and future perspectives

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is heterogeneous and contains diverse pathogenesis including type 1, type 2, and/or type 3 inflammation. For severe type 2 CRS especially CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), biologics that target inflammatory molecules have recently been applied along with further changes in the treatment algorithm for CRS. Currently, a completed phase 3 clinical trial for biologics for severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to surgery and/or intranasal corticosteroids, including omalizumab (anti-IgE), mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα), and dupilumab (anti-IL-4Rα), have all shown efficacy. Similar phase 3 clinical trials for tezepelumab (anti-TSLP) and etokimab (anti-IL-33) are now underway and completed, respectively. Further studies need to evaluate how to optimally and cost-effectively use biologics for CRS and determine if any biomarkers are indicative of which biologics should be administered. A definition of complete and/or clinical remission of CRS is also needed to determine when to reduce or discontinue biologics. In addition, more precise basic research on CRS, such as endotyping and genotyping, will need to be undertaken in order to determine novel targets for biologics.

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

Multidimensional Impact of Dupilumab on Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Complete Health Technology Assessment of Clinical, Economic, and Non-Clinical Domains

Chronic RhinoSinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) represents a condition mainly caused by the type 2 inflammation presence and marked by the existence of polyps within the nasal and paranasal sinuses. The standard of care includes intranasal steroids, additional burst of systemic steroids, if needed, and surgery. However, recurrence is common, especially among patients with comorbid type 2 inflammatory diseases. Recently, biological drugs, addressing the underlying cause of the disease, have been approved in Italy (dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab). A Health Technology Assessment was conducted to define multidimensional impact, assuming Italian NHS perspective and a 12-month time horizon. The EUnetHTA Core Model was deployed, using the following methods to analyze the domains: (i) literature evidence; (ii) administration of semi-structured questionnaires to 17 healthcare professionals; (iii) health economics tools to define the economic sustainability for the system. Evidence from NMA and ITC showed a more favorable safety profile and better efficacy for dupilumab compared with alternative biologics. All the analyses, synthesizing cost and efficacy measures, showed that dupilumab is the preferable alternative. Specifically, the cost per responder analysis for dupilumab, exhibiting a 67.0% response rate at Week 52, is notably economical at 14,209EUR per responder. This presents a more economical profile compared with the cost per responder for omalizumab (36.2% response rate) at 24,999EUR and mepolizumab (28.5% response rate) at 31,863EUR. These results underscore dupilumab's potential, not merely in terms of clinical outcomes, but also in terms of economic rationality, thereby solidifying its status as a valid and preferrable alternative in the management of CRSwNP, in the context of the Italian NHS.

Optimizing the timing of biologic and surgical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is often treated with endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS); however, patients may require revision surgery due to recurrence. To date, no studies have compared outcomes for combined surgery and biologic therapy for CRSwNP compared with biologic therapy alone.

METHODS

Retrospective case-control study of CRSwNP patients who underwent ESS while on dupilumab or mepolizumab (ESS-biologic cohort) compared with CRSwNP patients on biologic therapy (biologic-only controls). Cohorts were matched according to indication, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22), and total polyp scores.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients underwent ESS while on biologic therapy (13 dupilumab and 3 mepolizumab). Sixteen patients were biologic-only controls. There were no significant differences between indication, baseline SNOT-22 scores, polyp scores, and AERD status between cohorts. Patients underwent surgery a median of 33 days after starting biologic therapy. After 12 months of follow-up, the total polyp score for the ESS-biologic cohort decreased from 4.73 to 0.09 compared with a decrease from 5.22 to 3.38 for the biologic-only controls (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference: -5.37 to -1.38, Cohen's d: 2.40, p = 0.005). In the ESS-dupilumab subanalysis, the ESS-dupilumab cohort had a significant reduction in polyp burden from 4.85 to 0.00 compared with 4.88 to 3.50 for the controls (95% CI of difference: -5.68 to -1.32, Cohen's d: -1.69, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

In CRSwNP patients, combined ESS and biologic therapy results in a significant and sustained decrease in polyp burden compared with biologic therapy alone. Larger studies are warranted to further examine the impact of combined therapy.

Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis-A Modern Option for Therapy

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an important ENT pathology which affects about 5-12% of the general population. The treatment of CRS can be pharmacological (nasal sprays, douches, systemic antibiotics and steroids), surgical (endoscopic sinus surgery) or immunological according to established algorithms. CRS was divided for many years into CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP). New ways of classifying CRS by endotypes (presence of neutrophilia, eosinophilia, fibrosis, glandular hypertrophy and epithelial dysmorphisms) appeared after the most recent understandings of the pathophysiology of the disease. Other classifications divide CRS into primary and secondary forms, localized/diffuse types and anatomical presentation. A new type of treatment has been administered in the last years, biologics. For the moment, biologics are indicated just in the cases of the patients who have undergone ESS or have contraindications for surgery and have bilateral polyps and meet a minimum of three of the following criteria: the necessity for systemic therapies with oral or parenteral corticosteroids or contraindications to systemic steroids, significant loss of smell or impaired QoL score, comorbid asthma and type 2 inflammation. This article aims to present the most relevant studies which used the three types of biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5 and anti-IL4/IL3) and wishes to increase the awareness of this new type of treatment that can be used in some CRS cases.

Omalizumab Treatment in Uncontrolled Asthma and CRSwNP Patients, with Previous Endoscopic Sinus Surgery, to Improve Quality of Life and Endoscopic Outcomes: a Two-Year Real-Life Study

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite molecular underlying advances, limited and divergent data on monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) make further analysis necessary. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of omalizumab as an adjunct to endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on the treatment of CRSwNP under real-life conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the introduction of omalizumab, as the first biologic agent for the treatment of diseases such as severe allergic asthma, different studies have demonstrated an effect of omalizumab on CRSwNP, with significant improvements in sinonasal symptoms and endoscopic scores. The high efficacy derived from mAb therapy and the need for ESS prior to mAb recommended by guidelines, has led to compare both therapeutic alternatives, finding discrepancies in their effect on quality of life (QoL) and complementary tests outcomes. Patients with moderate-to-severe asthma with clinical criteria for omalizumab indication, and coexistent CRSwNP disease, were selected for a non-randomized interventional retrospective study into four treatment subgroups. Measures were analyzed and compared between groups and over time at the baseline, 16 weeks and 1 and 2 years after treatment. Omalizumab treatment in patients with previous ESS exhibited an earlier and more pronounced improvement in QoL, symptoms scale and endoscopic findings (nasal polyp score and the bilateral modified Lund-Kennedy) as early from week 16, which improvement persisted for 2 years. A greater mean improvement of 33.4 ± 6.5 (95% CI: 20.3-46.4; p < 0.001) points in sinonasal outcome test 22 (SNOT-22) was associated with ESS at week 16, against omalizumab effect (17.8 ± 7.6 [95% CI: 2.6-33.0]; p = 0.023). At year 2, an improvement in SNOT-22 of 62.6 ± 8.9 (95% CI: 48.4-84.1; p < 0.001) points was exclusively associated with omalizumab. Clinical evidence of the effect of omalizumab added to ESS treatment is provided in this study in the short- and long-term.

The role of intranasal corticosteroids in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis treated with dupilumab

PURPOSE

Dupilumab represents an innovative and effective therapy for refractory/recurrent severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Intranasal corticosteroids should be used during treatment with biological agents. However, adherence to nasal therapy may not be complete. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of intranasal corticosteroids in patients with CRSwNP who underwent treatment with dupilumab.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-two patients treated with dupilumab for CRSwNP were enrolled. Clinical parameters (age, sex, comorbidities, blood eosinophils, Nasal Polyp Score - NPS, Visual Analogue Scale - VAS - for smell loss, Asthma Control Test - ACT), quality of life (Sino Nasal Outcome Test 22 - SNOT-22 questionnaire), nasal cytology, and adherence to regular administration of intranasal corticosteroids were recorded before treatment (T0), and after 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 months (T3).

RESULTS

NPS, VAS for smell, ACT and SNOT-22 total score and subscores improved during treatment (p < 0.05). Blood eosinophils reached a peak at T1-T2 and then decreased toward baseline at T3. Adherence to regular treatment with intranasal steroids was 61.5 %. No statistically significant differences in all the clinical outcomes were observed between patients who regularly used intranasal steroids and other subjects (p > 0.05). Nasal cytology showed a decrease of eosinophils and an increase of neutrophils during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab is still effective in patients who are using topical nasal steroids with variable adherence (real world settings).

Dupilumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: current status, challenges, and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a common heterogeneous disease that mainly manifests as chronic inflammation of the sinus mucosa. The effect of conventional treatments for CRSwNP, such as oral corticosteroids, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) and polypectomy, is not always obvious, and postoperative recurrence is common in some CRSwNP patients. In recent years, some biologics have been shown to be very effective in treating refractory CRSwNP, of which dupilumab has attracted much attention as the first monoclonal drug approved to treat nasal polyps.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss the research status of dupilumab in treatment of CRSwNP and how dupilumab differs from other treatment methods.

EXPERT OPINION

The European Union and United States have approved dupilumab as the first biological agent for treatment of CRSwNP. Dupilumab can improve symptoms of nasal congestion or obstruction, nasal secretion, and olfactory loss in patients with CRSwNP. It can also improve a patient's health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and reduce the need for systemic corticosteroids and nasal polyp surgery. While subcutaneous injection of dupilumab is a novel method for treating CRSwNP, it is still necessary to reasonably evaluate which patients might benefit most from biological therapy.

Efficacy and safety of CM310 in severe eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CROWNS-1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial

Background

Severe eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (ECRSwNP) remains the most relapsed subtype of uncontrolled CRSwNP. CM310, a humanised anti-interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling which underlying eosinophilic inflammation. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CM310 in patients with severe ECRSwNP.

Methods

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial was conducted. 56 eligible adult patients with severe ECRSwNP were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneously either CM310 (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks under the background therapy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for 16 weeks, with 8 weeks of follow-up. Coprimary endpoints included the changes from baseline in nasal polyp score (NPS) and nasal congestion score (NCS) at week 16. Key secondary endpoints included sinus Lund-Mackay CT score, change in sinus volume occupied by disease, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score, 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test score, and total symptom score. Safety, pharmacodynamics, and changes in type 2 inflammation biomarkers were assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04805398.

Findings

Between April 6, 2021, and March 18, 2022, 27 patients respectively in both the CM310 and placebo groups completed the study. Findings suggested that CM310 improved the coprimary efficacy endpoints of decreasing nasal polyp size and alleviating nasal congestion compared with the placebo. Least squares (LS) mean differences (CM310 vs placebo) of change from baseline in NPS and NCS at week 16 were -2.1 (95% CI -2.9, -1.4; p < 0.0001) and -0.9 (95% CI -1.4, -0.5; p < 0.0001), respectively. Sinus CT scan revealed that Lund-Mackay CT score (LS mean difference [95% CI] -7.6, [-9.4, -5.8]; p < 0.0001) and sinus volume occupied by disease (LS mean difference [95% CI] -37%, [-47%, -28%]; p < 0.0001) were significantly improved with CM310 compared with placebo. In addition, CM310 significantly relieved the daily symptoms of patients with CRSwNP and improved their quality of life reflected by the improvements in the TSS (-2.6 [95% CI -3.5, -1.6]), UPSIT (10.4 [95% CI 6.8, 14.0]) and SNOT-22 score (-19.1 [95% CI -29.8, -8.5]). Compared with placebo, CM310 administration significantly reduced type 2-related biomarkers including the serum TARC and total IgE, and tissue eosinophils. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, blood cholesterol increased, and tinnitus, but none were considered drug-related.

Interpretation

These findings support CM310 as an effective additional treatment option to the standard of care in patients with severe ECRSwNP.

Funding

KeyMed Biosciences (Chengdu) Limited.

Innovative treatments for severe uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) based on the underlying immune mechanisms provided a better understanding of this heterogeneous disease and are frequently applied in diagnosis and treatment.

AREAS COVERED

In this manuscript, we aim to review novel treatment approaches for this often uncontrolled disease and highlight endotype-driven medical algorithms that could be beneficial in daily clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

With the development of endotyping and the mucosal inflammatory concept, several type 2-targeted biologics and surgical options are nowadays available for treating CRS. However, a better understanding based on clinical trials and real-life experience in daily practice is needed to optimize patient selection, biological drug selection, treatment duration, prediction, and long-term follow-up strategies. Indirect comparison analysis suggested that dupilumab might be the most effective biologic for treating CRS with nasal polyps, but the role and timing of surgery remain unclear. More real-life studies and comparative trials are needed for the optimal integration of biologics into clinical pathways in combination with established treatment approaches such as nasal and oral glucocorticosteroids and adequate surgery to provide long-term perspectives.

Biological Treatment for Uncontrolled Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Preliminary Real-World Results from a Tertiary Medical Center

The efficacy of biological treatment for severe uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has recently been demonstrated through double-blinded clinical trials. The aim of this study was to provide preliminary real-world experience regarding biological therapy for uncontrolled CRSwNP. The records of patients who received biological treatment in a tertiary medical center between the years 2019 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients included in this study were eligible for biological treatment according to the EPOS 2020 criteria. Among patients who had their first follow-up visit <6 months from the treatment initiation, the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 Questionnaire (SNOT-22) score had decreased by 22% (p = 0.01) and the nasal polyp score (NPS) had decreased by 48% (p = 0.05). Among patients who had their first follow-up visit ≥6 months from treatment initiation, the SNOT-22 score had decreased by 40% (p = 0.03) and the NPS had decreased by 39% (p = 0.1). The number of patients who needed systemic steroid treatment had decreased by 68% (p < 0.0001), and the number of patients who needed endoscopic sinus surgery had decreased by 74% (p < 0.0001). These findings correspond with the improvement of clinical symptoms observed in prior randomized clinical trials, thus showing the effectiveness of biologic medications in the treatment of severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting. Although further cohort studies are warranted, our study also suggests evaluating patients at follow-up visits mainly by quality-of-life aspects and investigating longer dosing intervals of dupilumab.

Evidence-Based Guideline for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a rare anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, characterized by asthma, eosinophilia and granulomatous or vasculitic involvement of several organs. The diagnosis and management of EGPA are often challenging and require an integrated, multidisciplinary approach. Current practice relies on recommendations and guidelines addressing the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis and not specifically developed for EGPA. Here, we present evidence-based, cross-discipline guidelines for the diagnosis and management of EGPA that reflect the substantial advances that have been made in the past few years in understanding the pathogenesis, clinical subphenotypes and differential diagnosis of the disease, as well as the availability of new treatment options. Developed by a panel of European experts on the basis of literature reviews and, where appropriate, expert opinion, the 16 statements and five overarching principles cover the diagnosis and staging, treatment, outcome and follow-up of EGPA. These recommendations are primarily intended to be used by healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical industries and drug regulatory authorities, to guide clinical practice and decision-making in EGPA. These guidelines are not intended to limit access to medications by healthcare agencies, nor to impose a fixed order on medication use.

Biologics for Nasal Polyps: Synthesizing Current Recommendations into a Practical Clinical Algorithm

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has been traditionally managed with a combination of topical and systemic medical therapy as well as endoscopic sinus surgery. The emergence of biologic therapies that target specific aspects of the inflammatory cascade has ushered in a potentially new paradigm in the management options available for CRSwNP.

PURPOSE

To summarize the current literature and recommendations supporting the use of available biologic therapies for CRSwNP and to develop an algorithm to aid clinical decision-making regarding treatment selection.

METHODS

A review of available literature and studies that demonstrated the clinical efficacy of biologic agents for the treatment of CRSwNP informing current CRSwNP consensus algorithms.

RESULTS

Current biologic medications target immunoglobulin E, interleukins, or interleukin receptors implicated in the Th2 inflammatory cascade. Institution of biologic therapy is now an option for patients who have disease refractory to topical medical therapy and endoscopic sinus surgery, those who cannot tolerate surgery, or patients with other comorbid Th2 diseases. Response to treatment should be monitored at 4-6 months and 1 year after initiating therapy. Across multiple indirect comparisons, dupilumab appears to have the largest therapeutic benefit across multiple subjective and objective outcomes. The choice of therapeutic agent also depends on drug availability, patient tolerance, presence of comorbid illnesses, and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics are emerging as an important option in the management of patients with CRSwNP. While more data is required to fully inform indications, treatment selection, and health economics related to their use, biologics may offer robust symptom relief to patients who have failed other interventions.

A Decade of Clinical Advances in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: 2012-2022

The field of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is constantly evolving. In the past 10 years, key advancements in basic and translational research as well as clinical studies have improved our understanding and management of CRS. Notably, treatment options have expanded to include novel therapeutic drugs, devices, and surgical techniques. Assessments of patient symptoms and their impact on quality of life have become more standardized. Progress has also been made in both determining the true prevalence of CRS and recognizing comorbidities that can impact CRS severity. Practice guidelines have also shifted from expert opinion to more data-driven analyses. This review highlights major clinical advancements made in the field of CRS over the past 10 years as well as identifies current gaps in knowledge that can form the basis for new areas of study over the next decade.

Therapeutical Targets in Allergic Inflammation

From the discovery of IgE to the in-depth characterization of Th2 cells and ILC2, allergic inflammation has been extensively addressed to find potential therapeutical targets. To date, omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, and dupilumab, an anti-IL-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody, represent two pillars of biologic therapy of allergic inflammation. Their increasing indications and long-term follow-up studies are shaping the many different faces of allergy. At the same time, their limitations are showing the intricate pathogenesis of allergic diseases.