Search

Background Eosinophilic inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis, severity, and treatment responsiveness of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Objective We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab-mediated eosinophil depletion for treating CRSwNP. Methods The phase 3 OSTRO study enrolled patients with severe CRSwNP who were symptomatic despite treatment with intranasal corticosteroids and who had a history of systemic corticosteroid (SCS) use and/or surgery for nasal polyps (NP). Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with benralizumab 30 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the first 3 doses and every 8 weeks thereafter. Coprimary end points were change from baseline to week 40 in NP score (NPS) and patient-reported mean nasal blockage score reported once every 2 weeks. Results The study population comprised 413 randomized patients (207 in the benralizumab group and 206 in the placebo group). Benralizumab significantly improved NPS and nasal blockage score compared to placebo at week 40 (P ≤ .005). Improvements in Sinonasal Outcome Test 22 score at week 40, time to first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP, and time to first NP surgery were not statistically significant between treatment groups. Nominal significance was obtained for improvement in difficulty in sense of smell score at week 40 (P = .003). Subgroup analyses suggested influences of comorbid asthma, number of NP surgeries, sex, body mass index, and baseline blood eosinophil count on treatment effects. Benralizumab was safe and well tolerated. Conclusion Benralizumab, when added to standard-of-care therapy, reduced NPS, decreased nasal blockage, and reduced difficulty with sense of smell compared to placebo in patients with CRSwNP. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03401229

BACKGROUND: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Background Percutaneous allergen skin testing remains an established benchmark for diagnosing atopic disease. The reliability of skin testing depends greatly on the performance of allergen extracts used, methods used, and the presence of antihistamine medications. Objective To determine the differential effect of cetirizine on 2 different concentrations of histamine control solution and 5 common allergens used for percutaneous skin testing. Methods Twelve individuals underwent skin testing with histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL), control diluent, and 5 common aeroallergens. Wheal and flare measurements were measured in a masked fashion by a single operator. Cetirizine was administered for 4 consecutive days to determine the effect on both histamine and allergen wheal and flare responses. Results A total of 384 skin tests were performed on 12 volunteers. Cetirizine began to suppress wheal and flare responses at 1 hour ( P P Conclusion The use of a 6-mg/mL histamine control for some percutaneous skin test devices may result in more false-negative allergen responses because of the inability to detect the presence of antihistamines.

Background Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. Objective Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. Methods Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. Results Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine ( P P Conclusions All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.