| 1. |
- Han, Joseph K, et al.
(författare)
-
Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE) : A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. - 2213-2600 .- 2213-2619. ; 9:10, s. 1141-1153
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps affects approximately 2-4% of the general population, and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with adverse effects. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in adults with recurrent, refractory severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.METHODS: SYNAPSE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 93 centres, mainly hospitals, in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent, refractory, severe, bilateral nasal polyp symptoms (nasal obstruction symptom visual analogue scale [VAS] score of >5), were eligible for repeat nasal surgery (overall symptoms VAS score >7 and endoscopic nasal polyps score of ≥5, with a minimum score of 2 in each nasal cavity) despite standard of care treatment, and had to have at least one nasal surgery in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using permuted block design, to receive either 100 mg mepolizumab subcutaneously or placebo once every 4 weeks, in addition to standard of care (mometasone furoate intranasal spray for at least 8 weeks before screening and during the study, saline nasal irrigations, systemic corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both), as required, for 52 weeks. Site staff, the central study team, and patients were masked to study treatment and absolute blood eosinophil counts. The coprimary endpoints were change from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp score at week 52 and in mean nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49-52, assessed in the intention-to-treat population (ITT). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03085797.FINDINGS: From May 25, 2017, to Dec 12, 2018, 854 patients were screened for eligibility. 414 patients were randomly assigned with 407 included in the ITT population; 206 received mepolizumab and 201 received placebo. Total endoscopic nasal polyp score significantly improved at week 52 from baseline with mepolizumab versus placebo (adjusted difference in medians -0·73, 95% CI -1·11 to -0·34; p<0·0001) and nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49-52 also significantly improved (-3·14, -4·09 to -2·18; p<0·0001). Adverse events considered related to study treatment were reported in 30 (15%) of 206 patients receiving mepolizumab and 19 (9%) of 201 receiving placebo. On-treatment serious adverse events occurred in 12 (6%) patients receiving mepolizumab and 13 (6%) receiving placebo; none were considered related to treatment in those receiving mepolizumab. One death was reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction; death occurred 99 days after the last dose) and was considered unrelated to the treatment.INTERPRETATION: Mepolizumab treatment improved nasal polyp size and nasal obstruction compared with placebo, with no new safety indications, in patients with recurrent, refractory severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. These findings suggest that mepolizumab provides an effective add-on treatment option to standard of care in this population.FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hellings, Peter W., et al.
(författare)
-
EUFOREA/EPOS2020 statement on the clinical considerations for CRSwNP care
-
Ingår i: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - 0105-4538.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Fokkens, Wytske J., et al.
(författare)
-
EUFOREA consensus on biologics for CRSwNP with or without asthma
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0105-4538 .- 1398-9995. ; 74:12, s. 2312-2319
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Novel therapies such as type 2 targeting biologics are emerging treatment options for patients with chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases, fulfilling the needs of severely uncontrolled patients. The majority of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and over half of patients with asthma show a type 2 inflammatory signature in sinonasal mucosa and/or lungs. Importantly, both chronic respiratory diseases are frequent comorbidities, ensuring alleviation of both upper and lower airway pathology by systemic biological therapy. Type 2-targeting biologics such as anti-IgE, anti-IL4Rα, anti-IL5, and anti-IL5Rα have entered the market for selected pheno/endotypes of asthma patients and may soon also become available for CRSwNP patients. Given the high prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases and the high cost associated with biologics, patient selection is crucial in order to implement such therapies into chronic respiratory disease care pathways. The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) organized a multidisciplinary Expert Board Meeting to discuss the positioning of biologics into the care pathways for CRSwNP patients with and without comorbid asthma.
|
|
| 6. |
- Sedaghat, Ahmad R., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus criteria for chronic rhinosinusitis disease control : an international Delphi Study*
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Rhinology. - 0300-0729. ; 61:6, s. 519-530
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) disease control is a global metric of disease status for CRS. While there is broad acceptance that it is an important treatment goal, there has been inconsistency in the criteria used to define CRS control. The objective of this study was to identify and develop consensus around essential criteria for assessment of CRS disease control. Methods: Modified Delphi methodology consisting of three rounds to review a list of 24 possible CRS control criteria developed by a 12-person steering committee. The core authorship of the multidisciplinary EPOS 2020 guidelines was invited to participate. Results: Thirty-two individuals accepted the invitation to participate and there was no dropout of participants throughout the entire study (3 rounds). Consensus essential criteria for assessment of CRS control were: overall symptom severity, need for CRS-related systemic corticosteroids in the prior 6 months, severity of nasal obstruction, and patient-reported CRS control. Near-consensus items were: nasal endoscopy findings, severity of smell loss, overall quality of life, impairment of normal activities and severity of nasal discharge. Participants’ comments provided insights into caveats of, and disagreements related to, near-consensus items. Conclusions: Overall symptom severity, use of CRS-related systemic corticosteroids, severity of nasal obstruction, and patient-reported CRS control are widely agreed upon essential criteria for assessment of CRS disease control. Consideration of near-consensus items to assess CRS control should be implemented with their intrinsic caveats in mind. These identified consensus CRS control criteria, together with evidence-based support, will provide a foundation upon which CRS control criteria with wide-spread acceptance can be developed.
|
|
