The epithelial barrier theory and its associated diseases.

The prevalence of many chronic noncommunicable diseases has been steadily rising over the past six decades. During this time, over 350,000 new chemical substances have been introduced to the lives of humans. In recent years, the epithelial barrier theory came to light explaining the growing prevalence and exacerbations of these diseases worldwide. It attributes their onset to a functionally impaired epithelial barrier triggered by the toxicity of the exposed substances, associated with microbial dysbiosis, immune system activation, and inflammation. Diseases encompassed by the epithelial barrier theory share common features such as an increased prevalence after the 1960s or 2000s that cannot (solely) be accounted for by the emergence of improved diagnostic methods. Other common traits include epithelial barrier defects, microbial dysbiosis with loss of commensals and colonization of opportunistic pathogens, and circulating inflammatory cells and cytokines. In addition, practically unrelated diseases that fulfill these criteria have started to emerge as multimorbidities during the last decades. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of diseases encompassed by the epithelial barrier theory and discuss evidence and similarities for their epidemiology, genetic susceptibility, epithelial barrier dysfunction, microbial dysbiosis, and tissue inflammation.

Dupilumab versus mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: an indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab and mepolizumab have shown efficacy and safety in treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). OBJECTIVE: Without available results from head-to-head randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing dupilumab with other biologics, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) with mepolizumab. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified RCTs of biologics in CRSwNP. A Bucher ITC was performed, including nasal polyp score (NPS; range 0-8), nasal congestion (NC; 0-3), loss of smell (LOS; 0-3), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT; 0-40), visual analog score (VAS; 0-10), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22; 0-110), systemic corticosteroids (SCS) use or surgery for nasal polyps (NPs), and binary responder analyses for NPS and SNOT-22 improvement by ≥1/≥2 and ≥8.9, respectively. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were conducted as supporting analyses. RESULTS: SINUS-24/-52 (SYNAPSE-like subpopulation only) and SYNAPSE were identified for ITC. At 24 weeks, change from baseline in NPS and proportion of patients with a binary responder outcome of NPS improvement ≥1 were significantly (P<0.05) greater in patients receiving dupilumab versus mepolizumab. At 52 weeks, improvements in NPS, NC, LOS, UPSIT, and VAS were significantly (P<0.05) greater for dupilumab versus mepolizumab. Proportion of patients achieving binary responder outcomes of NPS and SNOT-22 improvement by ≥1/≥2 and ≥8.9, respectively, was significantly (P<0.05) higher, while SCS use was significantly (P<0.05) reduced, for dupilumab versus mepolizumab. Surgery rate was numerically reduced with dupilumab versus mepolizumab. The MAIC analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in CRSwNP-related outcomes versus mepolizumab.

'Efficacy of biologics in NSAID-ERD: United airways from the nose to the bronchi'.

NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD), the clinical triad of severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), asthma, and respiratory reactions to cyclooxygenase 1 inhibitors, is often challenging to manage, with many patients failing first line therapies for CRSwNP and asthma. There are now six biologic mediations approved for asthma and/or severe CRSwNP: omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and tezepelumab. With the availability of respiratory biologic treatment for both asthma and CRSwNP, clinicians now have a multitude of additional management options for patients with NSAID-ERD. Herein we will review the currently available clinical trial and real-world evidence for biologic efficacy and safety patients with NSAID-ERD, discuss the mechanisms of biologic therapy specific to NSAID-ERD, and review evidence regarding the use of biologic therapy versus endoscopic sinus surgery therapy for CRSwNP and NSAID-ERD. We will propose a management approach for choosing biologic therapy or endoscopic sinus surgery with aspirin therapy after desensitization for patients with NSAID-ERD.

Mild and symptom-free months in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps treated with dupilumab.

BACKGROUND: Commonly reported outcomes of clinical trials in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) may have limited relatability for patients. OBJECTIVE: To enhance the patient relatability of outcomes in dupilumab clinical trials for CRSwNP, daily symptom scores were used to determine new patient­centered endpoints: mild-to-no-symptom months (MSM) and symptom-free months (SFM). METHODS: Post hoc analysis of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks (SINUS-24 study; NCT02912468) or 52 weeks (SINUS­52; NCT02898454). Patients recorded symptom severity scores daily for each of nasal congestion, loss of smell, and anterior and posterior rhinorrhea on a scale of 0-3 (0 = no symptoms; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = severe). We assessed the proportions of patients reporting only mild or no symptoms (MSM) or no symptoms (SFM) throughout the 28­day periods prior to randomization, Week 24 (pooled studies), and Week 52 (SINUS­52). RESULTS: Significantly more dupilumab­treated than placebo-treated patients achieved MSM for all four symptoms (Week 24: 31.0% vs 4.4%; OR 12.9 [6.4, 25.8]; Week 52: 38.3% vs 2.6%; OR 15.6 [5.9, 41.0]; both P < .0001). Additionally, significantly more dupilumab-treated than placebo­treated patients achieved SFM for at least one of the four symptoms (Week 24: 35.4% vs 10.8%; odds ratio [OR] 4.9 [95% confidence interval 3.1, 7.8]; Week 52: 50.0% vs 9.2%; OR 9.1 [4.6, 17.9]; both P < .0001). CONCLUSION: One-third of patients with severe CRSwNP treated with dupilumab achieved MSM for all four cardinal symptoms (nasal congestion, loss of smell, and anterior and posterior rhinorrhea). Moreover, half of patients achieved SFM for at least one of the four symptoms. These results support the benefit of dupilumab in improving patient­centered outcomes.

Dupilumab response onset, maintenance, and durability in patients with severe CRSwNP.

BACKGROUND: Responder analyses of SINUS phase 3 study data have shown clinically meaningful improvements across multiple outcomes of treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) with dupilumab. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to gain a better understanding of dynamics of the response to dupilumab over 52 weeks. METHODS: We used data from the SINUS-52 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02898454) intention-to-treat population to perform a post hoc analysis of patients with severe CRSwNP who had received dupilumab, 300 mg once every 2 weeks, or placebo. Response, which was defined as an improvement from baseline of a least 1 point in Nasal Polyp Score (NPS), nasal congestion (NC) score, and loss of smell (LoS) score, as well as an improvement of at least 8.9 points on the 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), was assessed for rapidity, maintenance, and durability. RESULTS: The study included 303 patients (150 of whom received dupilumab and 153 of whom received placebo). For each outcome measure, a greater proportion of patients achieved a first response by week 16 (rapidity) with dupilumab versus with placebo; specifically, the respective differences in indicators between the 2 groups by week 16 were as follows: NPS, 75.3% versus 39.2%; NC score, 60.0% versus 24.2%; LoS score, 60.7% versus 15.7%; and SNOT-22 score, 83.3% versus 66.0%. Of those patients given dupilumab who had a response by week 16, more than 80% maintained their response at week 52 (maintenance). Over 52 weeks, greater proportions of those patients given dupilumab were responders on at least 80% of time points; specifically, the respective differences in indicators between the 2 groups by week 16 were as follows: NPS, 46.7% versus 2.6%; NC score, 46.7% versus 9.2%; LoS score, 47.3% versus 3.9%; and SNOT-22 score, 62.0% versus 21.6% (durability). CONCLUSION: Most patients with CRSwNP achieve clinically meaningful responses to dupilumab by week 16, and most such patients in our study had maintenance and durability of response with continued treatment over time.

How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript. Methods: This is a narrative review. Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it. Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Dupilumab improves outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps irrespective of gender: results from the SINUS-52 trial.

Objectives: This post hoc analysis assessed disease characteristics and response to dupilumab treatment in male and female patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) (SINUS-52 study; NCT02898454). Methods: Patients received dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks on background intranasal corticosteroids. Efficacy was assessed through Week 52 using nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion/obstruction score, loss of smell score and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score. Disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Results: The analysis included 192 male and 111 female patients. Female patients had higher mean SNOT-22 total score (56.6 vs. 49.1, P < 0.01) and more coexisting asthma (78.4% vs. 46.4%, P < 0.0001) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD) (38.7% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.0001) than male patients, but other baseline characteristics were similar. Dupilumab significantly improved CRSwNP outcomes vs. placebo at Week 52, regardless of gender: least squares mean differences (95% confidence interval) for NPS were -2.33 (-2.80, -1.86) in male and -2.54 (-3.18, -1.90) in female patients (both P < 0.0001 vs. placebo), and for SNOT-22 were -19.2 (-24.1, -14.2) in male and -24.4 (-31.5, -17.3) in female patients (both P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). There were no significant efficacy-by-gender interactions. Conclusion: Female patients had greater asthma, NSAID-ERD and HRQoL burden at baseline than male patients. Dupilumab treatment significantly improved objective and subjective outcomes compared with placebo, irrespective of gender.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology-based topics spanning the field. METHODS: In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence-Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus-building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. RESULTS: The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology-based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. CONCLUSION: As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.

Prevalence of type 2 inflammatory signatures and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps from two phase 3 clinical trials: SINUS-24 and SINUS-52.

BACKGROUND: This post hoc analysis of the international SINUS-24/-52 trials (NCT02912468/NCT02898454) aimed to assess dupilumab efficacy in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) according to different definitions of type 2 inflammatory signature. METHODS: Six definitions of type 2 inflammation were used: ≥150 eosinophils/µL or total immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≥100 IU/mL with a coexisting type 2 condition; ≥150 eosinophils/µL or total IgE ≥100 IU/mL; ≥150 eosinophils/µL; ≥250 eosinophils/µL or total IgE ≥100 IU/mL; coexisting asthma or ≥300 eosinophils/µL; presence of a coexisting type 2 condition. Odds ratios (ORs; dupilumab vs. placebo) for achieving clinically meaningful improvement (≥1 point) from baseline to week 24 (pooled SINUS-24/-52) and week 52 (SINUS-52) were calculated for nasal polyp score (NPS; range 0-8), nasal congestion/obstruction score (NC; 0-3), and loss of smell score (LoS; 0-3). RESULTS: At baseline (n = 724), most patients displayed a type 2 inflammatory signature across definitions (64.2%-95.3%). At week 24, ORs for clinically meaningful improvement ranged from 11.9 to 14.9 for NPS across type 2 definitions, 6.5-9.6 for NC, and 12.2-17.8 for LoS (all p < 0.0001). OR ranges were similar or greater at week 52: 19.0-36.6, 7.6-12.1, and 9.2-33.5, respectively (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most patients with CRSwNP in the SINUS study had type 2 inflammation. Dupilumab demonstrated robust efficacy across definitions of type 2 inflammation, consistent with its profile as an inhibitor of Interleukin-4 and Interleukin-13 signaling, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in CRSwNP. KEY POINTS: This study assessed type 2 inflammation prevalence and dupilumab efficacy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps according to algorithm-defined type 2 inflammation Dupilumab efficacy was similar across all type 2 definitions.

Impact of Dupilumab on Sinonasal Symptoms and Outcomes in Severe Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the severity of the top 5 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) items ranked most important by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the effect of dupilumab on these items, and their association with objective disease measures. STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the SINUS-24 (NCT02912468) and SINUS-52 (NCT02898454) clinical trials. SETTING: Multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies. METHODS: Patients ranked the SNOT-22 items most affecting their health at baseline. Item symptom severity (0-5 scale) was assessed at baseline, Week 24 (W24), and Week 52 (W52). Changes in nasal polyps score (NPS) and Lund-Mackay (LMK) scores were assessed in patients with/without SNOT-22 items improvements of at least 1 severity group point at W24 and W52. RESULTS: The SNOT-22 items ranked most important at baseline were "decreased sense of smell/taste" (87% of patients), followed by "nasal blockage" (82%), "postnasal discharge" (40%), "thick nasal discharge" (37%), and "wake up at night" (26%); 82%, 61%, 32%, 40%, and 26% of patients reported severe symptoms (score 4 or 5) for these items, respectively. Dupilumab improved score severity for all top 5 items versus placebo at W24 and W52. Improvements in NPS and LMK scores were numerically greater in patients with improvements in the SNOT-22 top 5 items. CONCLUSION: Loss of smell/taste was ranked as the most important symptom by patients with CRSwNP. Dupilumab reduced the severity of the top 5 most important SNOT-22 items versus placebo, in parallel with improvements in objective disease measures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 clinical trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers NCT02912468 and NCT02898454, respectively.

Impairment of EQ-5D-5L Domains According to Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Control: A MASK-air Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: EQ-5D-5L (EuroQOL, 5 Domains, 5 Levels) is a widely used health-related quality-of-life instrument, comprising 5 domains. However, it is not known how each domain is impacted by rhinitis or asthma control. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between rhinitis or asthma control and the different EQ-5D-5L domains using data from the MASK-air mHealth app. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed data from all MASK-air users (2015-2021; 24 countries). For the levels of each EQ-5D-5L domain, we assessed rhinitis and asthma visual analog scales (VASs) and the combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We built ordinal multivariable models assessing the adjusted association between VAS/CSMS values and the levels of each EQ-5D-5L domain. Finally, we compared EQ-5D-5L data from users with rhinitis and self-reported asthma with data from users with rhinitis alone. RESULTS: We assessed 5354 days from 3092 users. We observed an association between worse control of rhinitis or asthma (higher VASs and CSMS) and worse EQ-5D-5L levels. In multivariable models, all VASs and the CSMS were associated with higher levels of pain/discomfort and daily activities. For anxiety/depression, the association was mostly observed for rhinitis-related tools (VAS nose, VAS global, and CSMS), although the presence of self-reported asthma was also associated with worse anxiety/depression. Worse mobility ("walking around") was particularly associated with VAS asthma and with the presence of asthma. CONCLUSIONS: A worse rhinitis control and a worse asthma control are associated with higher EQ-5D-5L levels, particularly regarding pain/discomfort and activity impairment. Worse rhinitis control is associated with worse anxiety/depression, and poor asthma control with worse mobility.

Two-year results of tapered dupilumab for CRSwNP demonstrates enduring efficacy established in the first 6 months.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is an anti-T2-inflammatory biological registered for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), indicated by integrated CRS-care pathways when optimal medico-surgical treatment yields insufficient CRS control. This study aims to evaluate long-term results with focus on established therapeutic efficacy while tapering dupilumab. METHODS: Real-life, prospective observational cohort study in single tertiary referral center with add-on dupilumab as primary biological treatment in adult (≥18 years) biological-naïve CRSwNP patients per the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS)2020-indication with a 2-year follow-up. Tapering (increasing interdose interval) applied every 24 weeks, conditional to sufficient treatment response and CRS control. RESULTS: Mean scores (s.d.) of all co-primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline ( 228) to the 48 ( 214) and 96-weeks ( 99) timepoints: Nasal Polyp Score (0-8) improved from 5,3 (1,9) to 1,4 (1,8) and 1,3 (1,7); SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 (0-110) improved from 53,6 (19,6) to 20,2 (15,4) and 21,2 (15,6); Sniffin'Sticks-12 identification test (0-12; 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia) improved from 3,7 (2,4) to 7,7 (2,9) and 7,3 (3,04); Asthma Control Test (5-25; >19 indicating well-controlled asthma) improved from 18,5 (4,8) to 21,8 (3,8) and 21,4 (3,9). Tapering was feasible in 79,5% of the patients at the 24-weeks timepoint, and in 93,7% and 95,8% at the 48- and 96-weeks timepoints, respectively. One-way repeated-measures ANOVA demonstrated no significant alterations of individual co-primary outcome mean-scores from 24 weeks onward. CONCLUSION: This first long-term real-life prospective observational cohort study shows high therapeutic efficacy of dupilumab for severe CRswNP in the first 2 years. Therapeutic efficacy is principally established within 24 weeks and endures while tapering dupilumab conditional to treatment response and CRS control.

A EUFOREA comment on a lost comorbidity of asthma.

"Epidemiology of comorbidities and their association with asthma control" (Tomisa, G., Horváth, A., Sánta, B. et al. Epidemiology of comorbidities and their association with asthma control. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 17, 95 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-021-00598-3 ) is an interesting paper reflecting data collection from more than 12,000 asthmatic patients in Hungary regarding their condition and associated comorbidities. We found it valuable that the paper provides an overview of asthma comorbidities not usually considered in similar reports. Nevertheless, we believe that chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP or CRSsNP) should have been listed due to its high incidence and prevalence, its association with asthma which is also endorsed in both GINA and EPOS, as well as in several peer-reviewed scientific papers, and to reflect the role of this comorbidity in poor control and a most severe presentation of asthma for the patient. Consequently, several targeted therapies (especially monoclonal antibodies) used for several years in severe forms of asthma are now indicated also for the effective treatment of nasal polyps.

Evaluation of switching or simultaneous use of biologic treatment in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and severe asthma. Considerations in clinical decision making.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 targeting biologics have reached the market first for asthma and since 2019 also for CRSwNP. As clear guidelines and predictors for optimal biological choice are missing, patients are sometimes required to switch biologic therapy in order to find the optimal treatment result. In this paper, we evaluate reasons for switching biologics and the treatment effects after each sequential switch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients who switched from one biologic to another for their treatment of CRSwNP and asthma were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty patients experienced satisfactory control of CRSwNP, but insufficient control of severe asthma. Fifty-one patients experienced satisfactory control of severe asthma, but insufficient control of CRSwNP/EOM. Twenty-eight patients experienced insufficient control of both upper and lower airways. Thirteen patients had to switch because of side effects. Furthermore, two cases are described to clarify clinical decision-making. DISCUSSION: For abovementioned patients, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to find the best suitable biologic. It seems ineffective to switch to a second anti-IL5 treatment if the first one is not successful. Most patients that failed omalizumab and/or an anti-IL-5 treatment are well controlled on dupilumab. Therefore, we suggest to use dupilumab as first choice when switching biologic agents.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023.

BACKGROUND: In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document. METHODS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. RESULTS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. CONCLUSION: The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Tranexamic acid for the reduction of bleeding during functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, can have a major impact on a person's quality of life. Treatment is usually conservative and may include nasal saline, intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics or systemic corticosteroids. If these treatments fail endoscopic sinus surgery can be considered. During surgery, visibility of the surgical field is important for the identification of important anatomic landmarks and structures that contribute to safety. Impaired visualisation can lead to complications during surgery, inability to complete the operation or a longer duration of surgery. Different methods are used to decrease intraoperative bleeding, including induced hypotension, topical or systemic vasoconstrictors or total intravenous anaesthesia. Another option is tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, which can be administered topically or intravenously. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peri-operative tranexamic acid versus no therapy or placebo on operative parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps) who are undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous, oral or topical tranexamic acid with no therapy or placebo in the treatment of patients (adults and children) with chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, undergoing FESS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were surgical field bleeding score (e.g. Wormald or Boezaart grading system), intraoperative blood loss and significant adverse effects (seizures or thromboembolism within 12 weeks of surgery). Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, incomplete surgery, surgical complications and postoperative bleeding (placing of packing or revision surgery) in the first two weeks after surgery. We performed subgroup analyses for methods of administration, different dosages, different forms of anaesthesia, use of thromboembolic prophylaxis and children versus adults. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review, with a total of 942 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 10 to 170. All but two studies included adult patients (≥ 18 years). Two studies included children. Most studies had more male patients (range 46.6% to 80%). All studies were placebo-controlled and four studies had three treatment arms. Three studies investigated topical tranexamic acid; the other studies reported the use of intravenous tranexamic acid. For our primary outcome, surgical field bleeding score measured with the Boezaart or Wormald grading score, we pooled data from 13 studies. The pooled result demonstrated that tranexamic acid probably reduces the surgical field bleeding score, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.51; 13 studies, 772 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A SMD below -0.70 represents a large effect (in either direction). Tranexamic acid may result in a slight reduction in blood loss during surgery compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of -70.32 mL (95% CI -92.28 to -48.35 mL; 12 studies, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably has little to no effect on the development of significant adverse events (seizures or thromboembolism) within 24 hours of surgery, with no events in either group and a risk difference (RD) of 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 8 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there were no studies reporting significant adverse event data with a longer duration of follow-up. Tranexamic acid probably results in little difference in the duration of surgery with a MD of -13.04 minutes (95% CI -19.27 to -6.81; 10 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of incomplete surgery, with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in little to no difference in surgical complications, again with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although these numbers are too small to draw robust conclusions. Tranexamic acid may result in little to no difference in the likelihood of postoperative bleeding (placement of packing or revision surgery within three days of surgery) (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 6 studies, 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies with longer follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the beneficial value of topical or intravenous tranexamic acid during endoscopic sinus surgery with respect to surgical field bleeding score. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests a slight decrease in total blood loss during surgery and duration of surgery. Whilst there is moderate-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid does not lead to more immediate significant adverse events compared to placebo, there is no evidence regarding the risk of serious adverse events more than 24 hours after surgery. There is low-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid may not change postoperative bleeding. There is not enough evidence available to draw robust conclusions about incomplete surgery or surgical complications.

Digitally-enabled, patient-centred care in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity: The ARIA-MASK-air® approach.

MASK-air® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper on endoscopic scoring of nasal polyposis.

Nasal endoscopy is not only used for the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), but also for monitoring the response to therapy playing an important role in both daily practice and research. In contrast to patient-reported outcomes, endoscopic nasal polyp scoring by independent blinded readers is an objective measurement, not influenced by the placebo effect. It is safer and cheaper compared with computed tomography imaging and therefore, better suited for regular assessments of the extent of the disease. Since the early 90s, a variety of endoscopic staging methods have been proposed and used in clinical research, making it hard to compare results from different studies. This paper resulted from a task force with experts in the field of CRSwNP, originated by the Ear, Nose and Throat section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and aims to provide a unified endoscopic NP scoring system that can serve as a reference standard for researchers, but also as a useful tool for practitioners involved in the management of CRSwNP.