Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the 52‐week Phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab given every 4 weeks (100 mg subcutaneously) reduced nasal polyp (NP) size, improved symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and reduced corticosteroid use and number of sinus surgeries in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), versus placebo. Because the durability of mepolizumab's efficacy after discontinuation is poorly understood in CRSwNP, the efficacy of mepolizumab after discontinuation was analyzed in severe CRSwNP, over a 24‐week follow‐up. Methods: Changes from SYNAPSE baseline to end of treatment (week 52) and end of follow‐up (week 76) were assessed for total endoscopic NP score, nasal obstruction and overall symptoms visual analog scale scores, and 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test score. Time to first sinus surgery, time to first corticosteroid use, and geometric mean blood eosinophil counts (BECs) were also assessed. Results: Among 134 follow‐up patients, clinical improvements observed with mepolizumab versus placebo were partially evident 24 weeks after discontinuation despite BEC returning to baseline. The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline in NP score (week 52: −1.3 [1.8 to −0.9] vs. −0.3 [−0.6 to 0.1]; week 76: −1.2 [−1.6 to −0.7] vs. −0.1 [−0.5 to 0.3]) and the proportion of patients having sinus surgery (week 52: 4% vs. 25%; week 76: 9% vs. 31%) remained substantially improved with mepolizumab versus placebo. Mepolizumab‐associated improvements in overall symptoms, quality of life, and corticosteroid use versus placebo were partially sustained at week 76. Conclusion: Fifty‐two weeks of mepolizumab treatment is associated with sustained clinical benefits up to 24 weeks after discontinuation in patients with severe CRSwNP, which should be considered by physicians when making treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe asthma represents a true challenge for clinicians from two basic perspectives, i.e.: a rational assessment of the underlying endo/phenotype and the subsequent selection of the best fitted (personalized) and effective treatment. Even though asthma is a heterogeneous disease, in the majority of therapy-compliant patients, it is possible to achieve (almost) complete disease control or even remission through conventional and quite uniform step-based pharmacotherapy, even without phenotyping. However, the absence of deeper assessment of individual patients revealed its handicap to its fullest extent during the first years of the new millennium upon the launch of biological therapeutics for patients with the most severe forms of asthma. The introduction of differentially targeted biologics into clinical practice became a challenge in terms of understanding and recognizing the etiopathogenetic heterogeneity of the asthmatic inflammation, pheno/endotyping, and, consequently, to choose the right biologic for the right patient. The answers to the following three questions should lead to correct identification of the dominant pheno/endotype: Is it really (severe) asthma? Is it eosinophilic asthma? If eosinophilic, is it (predominantly) allergen-driven? The identification of the best achievable and relevant alliance between endotypes and phenotypes ("euphenotypes") should be based not only on the assessment of the actual clinical characteristics and laboratory biomarkers, but more importantly, on the evaluation of their development and changes over time. In the current paper, we present a pragmatic three-step approach to severe asthma diagnosis and management., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MT has received consulting fees (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi); honoraria for lectures, presentations (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, Novartis, Sanofi, TEVA); support for attending meetings and/or travel (Sanofi, Chiesi) and honoraria for participation on Advisory Boards (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi). ZD has received consulting and/or speaker fees from ALK, Antabio, Arcede, Biosion, Foresee Pharmaceuticals, Galenushealth, GSK, Hippo-Dx, Sanofi-Genzyme, QPS-NL; has participated in the speakers’ bureaus of Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi-Genzyme; and as Asthma Expert Panel Chair for EUFOREA (2020–2023). RK has received consulting fees (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, Chiesi); honoraria for lectures, presentations (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Benela, Pfizer, Viatris); support for attending meetings and/or travel (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer) and honoraria for participation on Advisory Boards (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, Chiesi, Pfizer). MJ has received consulting fees (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, Takeda, Zentiva); honoraria for lectures, presentations (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, Takeda, Zentiva, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Novartis, Benela, Pfizer, Viatris); support for attending meetings and/or travel (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur) and honoraria for participation on Advisory Boards (ALK-Abello, Stallergenes-Greer, Chiesi, Novartis, SOBI, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme/Pasteur)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Monitoring is a major component of asthma management in children. Regular monitoring allows for diagnosis confirmation, treatment optimization, and natural history review. Numerous factors that may affect disease activity and patient well-being need to be monitored: response and adherence to treatment, disease control, disease progression, comorbidities, quality of life, medication side-effects, allergen and irritant exposures, diet and more. However, the prioritization of such factors and the selection of relevant assessment tools is an unmet need. Furthermore, rapidly developing technologies promise new opportunities for closer, or even "real-time," monitoring between visits. Following an approach that included needs assessment, evidence appraisal, and Delphi consensus, the PeARL Think Tank, in collaboration with major international professional and patient organizations, has developed a set of 24 recommendations on pediatric asthma monitoring, to support healthcare professionals in decision-making and care pathway design., (© 2024 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)