Search

Mona Al-Ahmad,1,2,&ast; Asmaa Ali,2– 4,&ast; Haitham A Dawood,5 Gerges M Beshreda6 1Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 2Department of Allergy, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 3Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Abbassia Chest Hospital, Ministry of Health, Cairo, Egypt; 5Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt; 6Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Minia, Egypt&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Mona Al-Ahmad, Microbiology Department, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 24923, Safat, Kuwait City, 13110, Kuwait, Tel +965-24636515, Fax +965-25332719, Email mona.alahmad@ku.edu.kwBackground and Objectives: While achieving complete radiological improvement in patients with nasal polyps is often observed following surgical resection, the impact of biologic therapy, specifically dupilumab, on polyp size is an area of great interest. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of dupilumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) by assessing nasal polyps using the computed tomography (CT) staging system, Lund–Mackay score (LMS).Methods: A two-year prospective cohort study was conducted on 29 patients diagnosed with CRSwNP and asthma and eligible for dupilumab as an add-on therapy. The study involved comprehensive assessments of patients before biologic initiation and after the study. These assessments included clinical, laboratory, and radiological evaluations.Results: Dupilumab treatment reduces LMS across sinuses (p< 0.001) and improves nasal obstruction (p=0.001). Blood eosinophil count (BEC) predicts persistent sinus obstruction, doubling the likelihood per unit increase (odds ratio: 1.67, p=0.02). BEC levels identify persistent nasal obstruction (AUC: 76%, p=0.04), with a cutoff point above 255.5 cells per microliter, revealing a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 42%. The probability of persistent nasal obstruction at the 20th month is 55%, regardless of prior nasal polyp surgery (p=0.41).Conclusion: Dupilumab led to significant radiological improvements in patients with CRSwNP, demonstrating a potential role of radiological remission, irrespective of prior nasal polyp surgery. Additionally, BEC levels may guide the likelihood of persistent nasal obstruction.Keywords: chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, dupilumab, radiological remission, Lund–Mackay score

Mona Al-Ahmad,1,2,&ast; Asmaa Ali,2– 4,&ast; Mohammad Z Haider5 1Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 2Department of Allergy, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 3Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Abbassia Chest Hospital, Ministry of Health, Cairo, Egypt; 5Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Mona Al-Ahmad, Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait, Tel +965-24636515, Fax +965-25332719, Email mona.alahmad@ku.edu.kwBackground: A significant link between T allele of the IL-4 (C590T) gene and developing asthma in some populations was reported. However, no study discussed the link between IL-4 (C590T) gene polymorphism and asthma severity groups (mild and severe). This study investigated the link between IL-4 gene variation and asthma severity.Methods: The study included 215 asthmatic patients, of which 102 had mild asthma, and 126 participants were healthy controls. A previously published polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method was used to identify various IL-4 (C590T) gene polymorphism genotypes.Results: The T allele frequency was higher in mild asthma (p=0.002) but not in severe asthma (p=0.12) compared to controls. In mild asthma, the CT genotype and (CT+TT versus CC) increased the likelihood of asthma threefold (p< 0.001, 0.001). However, no significant association with severe asthma was found in either genetic model. Stratification analysis showed that the C allele and CC genotype increased the risk of severe asthma (p=0.01). The recessive genetic model indicated a decrease in the risk of severe asthma (OR=0.5, p=0.01) in the non-adjusted regression analysis. Adjusting for age, sex, and other risk factors revealed that the IL-4 gene polymorphism did not influence the risk of severe asthma (OR=0.92, p=0.80); however, being an elderly female with a history of childhood-onset disease and associated nasal polyp (NP) increased the likelihood of severe asthma, OR=1.08, 2.01, 2.36, 8.42; p< 0.001, 0.05, 0.05, < 0.001, respectively.Conclusion: The T allele and CT genotype in the co-dominant genetic model and the (CT+TT) genotype in the recessive model were found to have a higher likelihood of developing mild asthma but not severe asthma; severe asthma was found to be higher in elderly females with a history of childhood-onset disease and associated nasal polyps.Keywords: IL-4 (C590T) gene polymorphism, mild and severe asthma, nasal polyp

Breda Cushen,1,&ast; Mariko Siyue Koh,2,&ast; Trung N Tran,3 Neil Martin,3,4 Ruth Murray,5 Thendral Uthaman,6 Celine Yun Yi Goh,5,6 Rebecca Vella,7 Neva Eleangovan,5,6 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,5,6 Jorge F Maspero,8,9 Matthew J Peters,10 Florence Schleich,11 Paulo Pitrez,12 George Christoff,13 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,14 Carlos A Torres-Duque,15,16 Celeste Porsbjerg,17 Alan Altraja,18 Lauri Lehtimäki,19 Arnaud Bourdin,20 Christian Taube,21 Nikolaos G Papadopoulos,22,23 Csoma Zsuzsanna,24 Unnur Björnsdóttir,25 Sundeep Salvi,26 Enrico Heffler,27 Takashi Iwanaga,28 Mona al-Ahmad,29 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,30 Job FM van Boven,31 Bernt Bøgvald Aarli,32,33 Piotr Kuna,34 Cláudia Chaves Loureiro,35,36 Riyad Al-lehebi,37 Jae Ha Lee,38 Nuria Marina,39 Leif Bjermer,40 Chau-Chyun Sheu,41,42 Bassam Mahboub,43 John Busby,44 Andrew Menzies-Gow,45 Eileen Wang,46 David B Price5,6,47 On behalf of ISAR Inventory Study Group1Department of Respiratory Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; 2Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Department of Respiratory Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; 5Optimum Patient Care Global, Cambridge, UK; 6Observational Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 7Optimum Patient Care, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 8Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 9University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 10Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 11CHU Sart-Tilman, GIGA I3, University of Liege, Liège, Wallonia, Belgium; 12Pulmonology Division, Hospital Santa Casa de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil; 13Faculty of Public Health, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria; 14Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 15CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 16Universidad de La Sabana, Chia, Colombia; 17Department of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 19Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 20PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 21Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 22Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 23Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 24Asthma Outpatient Clinic, National Koranyi Institute for Pulmonology, Budapest, Hungary; 25Department of Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland; 26Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 27Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; 28Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 29Microbiology Department, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 30Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 31University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Groningen, the Netherlands; 32Department of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; 33Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 34Division of Internal Medicine Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 35Pneumology Unit, Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; 36Centre of Pneumology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; 37Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 38Division of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea; 39Pneumology Service, Biocruces, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, Spain; 40Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 41Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; 42Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; 43Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority (DHA), Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 44Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK; 45Lung Division, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospital, London, UK; 46Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health and University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver and Aurora, CO, USA; 47Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgAim: The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) uses standardised variables to enable multi-country and adequately powered research in severe asthma. This study aims to look at the data countries within ISAR and non-ISAR countries reported collecting that enable global research that support individual country interests.Methods: Registries were identified by online searches and approaching severe asthma experts. Participating registries provided data collection specifications or confirmed variables collected. Core variables (results from ISAR’s Delphi study), steroid-related comorbidity variables, biologic safety variables (serious infection, anaphylaxis, and cancer), COVID-19 variables and additional variables (not belonging to the aforementioned categories) that registries reported collecting were summarised.Results: Of the 37 registries identified, 26 were ISAR affiliates and 11 non-ISAR affiliates. Twenty-five ISAR-registries and 4 non-ISAR registries reported collecting > 90% of the 65 core variables. Twenty-three registries reported collecting all optional steroid-related comorbidity variables. Twenty-nine registries reported collecting all optional safety variables. Ten registries reported collecting COVID-19 variables. Twenty-four registries reported collecting additional variables including data from asthma questionnaires (10 Asthma Control Questionnaire, 20 Asthma Control Test, 11 Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and 4 EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level Questionnaire). Eight registries are linked to databases such as electronic medical records and national claims or disease databases.Conclusion: Standardised data collection has enabled individual severe asthma registries to collect unified data and increase statistical power for severe asthma research irrespective of ISAR affiliations.Keywords: Asia-Pacific, biologics, COVID-19, Europe, ISAR, International Severe Asthma Registry, oral corticosteroids, Registry, Middle East, Severe Asthma, Latin America, USA

Osama Marglani,1,2 Rashid Al Abri,3 Mona Al Ahmad,4 Saad Alsaleh,5 Mohamed Abuzakouk,6 Reda Kamel7 1Department of Ophthalmology, and Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Surgery, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 3Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman; 4Al-Rashed Allergy Centre, Kuwait, State of Kuwait; 5Rhinology and Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery Division, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 6Department of Allergy and Immunology, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 7Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Cairo University, Cairo, EgyptCorrespondence: Osama Marglani, Department of Surgery, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Jeddah, 23431, Saudi Arabia, Email omarglani1@gmail.comAbstract: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a chronic and often debilitating inflammatory condition of the nasal and paranasal tissues. An expert panel of specialists from the Gulf region (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates) and from Egypt gathered to evaluate existing guidance and develop regional guidance on the management of CRSwNP through a consensus approach. The present article presents the main observations and recommendations from this panel. CRSwNP diagnosis requires the presence of bilateral, endoscopically visualized polyps in the middle meatus (via nasal endoscopy or CT). In most patients, CRSwNP is mediated through predominantly type 2 inflammatory processes and is often observed in patients with asthma and other allergic disease. While many patients respond to medical treatment (principally topical irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids, and adjunctive short-term use of systemic corticosteroids), clinical management of CRSwNP is challenging, and a multidisciplinary approach for complete evaluation and treatment is recommended. Patients with more severe/uncontrolled disease (despite adequate medical therapies) require a complete endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), although outcomes can be unsatisfactory, and further revision surgery is common. Biological therapies targeting underlying inflammatory processes offer additional, effective treatment options for those patients with persistent symptoms despite complete ESS, and also in those patients where surgery may be contraindicated.Keywords: chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, CRSwNP, type 2 inflammation, biologics

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥ 4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/μL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p< 0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p< 0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1 Claire McBrien,2 Bindhu Unni,3 Celeste M Porsbjerg,4 Mona Al-Ahmad,5 Christopher S Ambrose,6 Karin Dahl Assing,7 Anna von Bülow,4 John Busby,8 Borja G Cosio,9 J Mark FitzGerald,10 Esther Garcia Gil,11 Susanne Hansen,12 Liam G aHeaney,8 Mark Hew,13,14 David J Jackson,15,16 Maria Kallieri,17 Stelios Loukides,17 Njira L Lugogo,18 Andriana I Papaioannou,17 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,19 Wendy C Moore,20 Luis A Perez-de-Llano,21 Linda M Rasmussen,22 Johannes M Schmid,23 Salman Siddiqui,24 Marianna Alacqua,25 Trung N Tran,6 Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,26 John W Upham,27 Eileen Wang,28,29 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,3,30 Victoria A Carter,3,30 Isha Chaudhry,3,30 Neva Eleangovan,3,30 Ruth B Murray,3,30 Chris A Price,3,30 David B Price3,30,31 1UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 2Kingston Hospital, London, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait; 6AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 7Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 8UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 9Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 10The Centre for Lung Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, UBC, Vancouver, Canada; 11AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 12Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 14Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 15UK Severe Asthma Network andNational Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 16School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 17 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 18Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 19Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 20Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 21Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain; 22Allergy Clinic, Department of Dermato-Allergology, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 23University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark; 24University of Leicester, Department of Respiratory Sciences & NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory Theme), Leicester, UK; 25AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 26Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 27Diamantina Institute & PA-Southside Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 28Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 29Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 30Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 31Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06 Midview City, Singapore, 573969 Tel +65 3105 1489Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors.Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015– 2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018– 2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups.Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti–IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti–IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization.Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, prescribing, cohort study, management, international

Mona Al-Ahmad,1 Saad Alsaleh,2 Heba Al-Reefy,3 Janan Al Abduwani,4 Iman Nasr,5 Rashid Al Abri,6 Ahmed Mohd Haider Alamadi,7 Ayman Ali Fraihat,8 Abdulmohsen Alterki,9 Mohamed Abuzakouk,10 Osama Marglani,11 Hussain Al Rand12 1Al-Rashed Allergy Centre, Kuwait, State of Kuwait; 2Rhinology and Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery Division, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3Awali Hospital, Manama, Bahrain; 4Al Nahda Hospital, MoH, Muscat, Oman; 5Royal Hospital, MoH, Muscat, Oman; 6Sultan Qaboos, University Hospital, Muscat, Oman; 7Al Kuwait Hospital, MoH, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 8Sulaiman Al Habib Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 9Department Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Zain and Al Sabah Hospitals, Medical Department, Dasman Diabetes Institute, Kuwait, State of Kuwait; 10Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 11Umm Al Qura University, Makkah and KFSH&RC, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 12Dubai HealthCare City, Dubai, United Arab EmiratesCorrespondence: Hussain Al Rand Ministry of Health, P. O. Box 1853, Dubai, United Arab EmiratesTel +971 50-6464643Email hussain.alrand@mohap.gov.aeAbstract: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is defined as the inflammation of nose and paranasal sinuses, affecting the patients’ quality of life and productivity. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a principal clinical entity confirmed by the existence of chronic sinonasal inflammation and is characterized by anterior or posterior rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, hyposmia and/or facial pressure or facial pain. Several epidemiologic studies have revealed wide variations in the incidence of CRS among regions globally ranging from 4.6% to 12%. The Gulf countries are also witnessing an unprecedented burden of CRSwNP. According to the current clinical guidelines, glucocorticosteroids and antibiotics are the principal pharmacotherapeutic approaches. Endoscopic sinus surgery is recommended for those who have failed maximal pharmacotherapy. Recently, biologics are considered as an alternative best approach due to the complications associated with medical therapy and surgery. However, precise data on the clinical position of biologic agents in the management of CRSwNP in the Gulf region is not available. The present review article addresses the current diagnostic and management approaches for CRSwNP and also emphasizes the role of emerging biologics in the current treatment strategies for CRSwNP in the Gulf region. Further, a consensus protocol was convened to rationalize the guideline recommendations, strategize the best practices with biologics, and develop clinical practice guidelines for all primary-care specialists in the Gulf region. The consensus-based report will be a useful reference tool for primary-care physicians in primary-healthcare settings, regarding the appropriate time for the initiation of biological treatment in the Gulf region.Keywords: paranasal sinuses, glucocorticosteroids, endoscopic sinus surgery, inflammation, rhinorrhea

Betty Titus Mathew,1 Shaima Raji,2 Sawsan Dagher,1 Ali Hilal-Alnaqbi,1,3 Abdel-Hamid Ismail Mourad,1,4 Sulaiman Al-Zuhair,5 Mahmoud Al Ahmad,2 Khaled Abbas El-Tarabily,6 Amr Amin6,7 1Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates; 2Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates; 3Abu Dhabi Polytechnic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 4Mechanical Design Department, Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University, Helwan, Cairo, Egypt; 5Chemical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates; 6Biology Department, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates; 7Department of Zoology/College of Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt Background: Activated carbon (AC) is a common adsorbent that is used in both artificial and bioartificial liver devices.Methods: Three natural materials – date pits of Phoenix dactylifera (fruit), Simmondsia chinensis (jojoba) seeds, and Scenedesmus spp. (microalgae) – were used in the present investigation as precursors for the synthesis of AC using physical activation. The chemical structures and morphology of AC were analyzed. Then, AC’s bilirubin adsorption capacity and its cytotoxicity on normal liver (THLE2) and liver cancer (HepG2) cells were characterized.Results: Compared with the other raw materials examined, date-pit AC was highly selective and showed the most effective capacity of bilirubin adsorption, as judged by isotherm-modeling analysis. MTT in vitro analysis indicated that date-pit AC had the least effect on the viability of both THLE2 and HepG2 cells compared to jojoba seeds and microalgae. All three biomaterials under investigation were used, along with collagen and Matrigel, to grow cells in 3D culture. Fluorescent microscopy confirmed date-pit AC as the best to preserve liver cell integrity.Conclusion: The findings of this study introduce date-pit-based AC as a novel alternative biomaterial for the removal of protein-bound toxins in bioartificial liver devices. Keywords: activated carbon, adsorption, cytotoxicity, phytomaterials, in vitro analysis, 3D cultures, 2D cultures

Mona Al-Ahmad,1 Maryam S Alowayesh,2 Norman V Carroll31Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, 2Pharmacy Practice Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Kuwait University, Kuwait; 3Division of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, VA, USABackground: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common problem worldwide. We evaluated the direct medical costs of treating patients with refractory CSU and the budget effect of omalizumab use in these patients in Kuwait.Methods: The prevalence of CSU was estimated using the Delphi method. Medical records of patients with refractory CSU in Kuwait were reviewed. Costs were calculated from a health system perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on the price and utilization of each cost component.Results: Before omalizumab use, the total direct costs of treating 1,293 patients with refractory CSU were estimated to be USD 3,650,733 per year. This estimation was principally generated by outpatient visits. After omalizumab use, the cost was sensitive to price variation and estimated to be USD 15,828,612 per year. All other direct costs were reduced.Conclusion: The economic burden of refractory CSU in Kuwait is high. Omalizumab use is costly, but its administration reduces all other direct costs.Keywords: cost, chronic urticaria, Kuwait, omalizumab, economic, Middle East