Search

Introduction: Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is a common endocrine disorder in which surgery is the only curative therapy. Ectopic parathyroid adenoma in the pyriform sinus resulting from a pathological migration of parathyroid glands along the embryological development is a rare cause of PHPT. We describe a case of a persistent primary hyperparathyroidism after previous unsuccessful surgery due to an ectopic parathyroid adenoma within the pyriform sinus and we review the previous reports on this issue., Case Presentation: A 62-year-old woman was referred for persistent hypercalcemia following unsuccessful cervical exploratory surgery. Cervical ultrasound did not detect any parathyroid abnormalities. At variance, 99m Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT and CT scan of the neck identified a parathyroid adenoma in the left pyriform sinus, which was confirmed by endoscopy. The patient was successfully treated by transoral robotic resection and the pathology confirmed a parathyroid adenoma., Conclusions: The ectopic parathyroid adenoma in the pyriform sinus is so uncommon that only fourteen cases have been reported. However, the pyriform sinus should be considered a possible location of ectopic parathyroid glands, especially in the setting of persistent or recurrent PHPT after parathyroid surgery., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Sardella, Seccia, Giambalvo, Pierotti, Dinoi, Della Valentina, Pardi, Materazzi, Dallan, Berrettini and Cetani.)

Background: Severe Eosinophilic Asthma (SEA) may be the prodromal phase of Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA). Nevertheless, few studies have tried to recognize EGPA in the early stages of the disease., Objectives: To identify a panel of clinical and biological markers to detect which severe asthmatic patient might be considered in a prodromal phase of EGPA and crafting a strategy for diagnostic decision-making., Methods: 30 patients with EGPA and 49 with SEA were enrolled. A complete pulmonary, ear, nose and Throat (ENT) and rheumatologic assessment were made. Blood (eosinophil count, eosinophilic cationic protein-ECP, IL5, IL4, total-IgE, IgG4, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA), sputum (eosinophils count, periostin, IL8 and GMCSF) and nasal smear (eosinophilia) biomarkers were assessed. Asthma Control Test, Short Form-36, SinoNasalOutcome Test-22, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire were also used., Results: SEA patients had poorer asthma control (p<0.001) and higher level of sputum eosinophils (p<0.002) while EGPA patients reported higher levels of blood eosinophils in the past. Sputum GMCSF was the only biomarker significantly increased in EGPA patients compared with SEA (p<0.0001). Among SEA patients, those with some suggestive but not diagnostic criteria of EGPA, particularly tissue eosinophilic infiltrates, presented higher levels of sputum GMCSF (p<0.0005), blood and sputum eosinophils (p<0.0006, p<0.011) in comparison with the other patients., Conclusion: Sputum GMCSF and eosinophils might be useful biomarkers to support early diagnosis and treatment choices in SEA patients, suspected of having EGPA., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: BD received grants for speeches and advisory boards from Angelini, Astrazeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi and Zambon. BL received fees from Astrazeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. BC received fees from GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. CL received fees for lectures from Alk Abellò, Astrazeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. DCE received fees for consultation, lectures and advisory board from Astrazeneca, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron and Sanofi. LMI reveived fees from Chiesi, DMG Firma, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. MG has received fees from GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. MA received fee for advisory board and speaker for Astra Zeneca, Chiesi, CSL Boerhing, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. SV partecipated in advisory boards and scientific meetings on behalf of Astrazeneca, Firma, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. VA received fees for lectures and advisory boards from Astrazeneca, GSK, Novartis, and Sanofi. PP received grants for speeches and expert opinion from GSK, LeoPharma, and Novartis. CFRM received fees from GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. RM and SC are GSK full time employes. Macchi A, ML, NS, PG and PL declare to have no conflicts of interest.

Purpose of Review: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments., Recent Findings: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose of Review: The development of biological therapies for type 2 inflammatory diseases raises the possibility of addressing remission in those dis-immune conditions. No consensus exists for a definition of remission in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). This review aims to critically evaluate the published data to provide the basis for defining remission in CRSwNP., Recent Findings: The published evidence has yet to provide an unequivocal definition on remission in type 2 inflammatory diseases, in part reflecting differences in approaches to diagnosis and follow-up. A multidimensional evaluation is necessary when considering complete remission, including clinical, inflammatory, and histologic criteria, but how to combine or tailor the three perspectives according to disease severity at baseline or timing of assessment of treatment category is yet to reach consensus. We suggest defining remission starting from the approach taken in asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, that is, including the resolution of symptoms and improvements in objective parameters of disease severity and/or inflammatory activity. Future studies and consensuses should provide validated criteria with cutoffs for the day-to-day definition of remission. The definition of remission in CRSwNP should include the following criteria, to be verified and maintained for a period of ≥ 12 months: absence of symptoms (nasal obstruction, loss of smell, rhinorrhea as the main ones); no impact of symptoms on quality of life; no need of surgery; no chronic or rescue medications (systemic corticosteroids or antibiotics); and recovery of smell function, possibly evaluated by objective test. Assessment of underlying inflammation should also be considered once accurate and feasible biomarkers are available in clinical practice., (© 2023. The Author(s).)