Role of Innate Immunity in the Pathogenesis of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Progress and New Avenues

Chronic rhinosinusitis is a heterogeneous and multifactorial disease with unknown etiology. Aberrant responses to microorganisms have been suggested to play a role in the pathophysiology of the disease. Research has focused on the presence, detection, response to, and eradication of these potential threats. Main topics seem to center on the contribution of structural cells such as epithelium and fibroblasts, on the consequences of activation of pattern-recognition receptors, and on the role of antimicrobial agents. This research should be viewed not only in the light of a comparison between healthy and diseased individuals, but also in a comparison between patients who do or do not respond to treatment. New players that could play a role in the pathophysiology seem to surface at regular intervals, adding to our understanding (and the complexity) of the disease and opening new avenues that may help fight this incapacitating disease

EUFOREA Rhinology Research Forum 2016: report of the brainstorming sessions on needs and priorities in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis

The first European Rhinology Research Forum organized by the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) was held in the Royal Academy of Medicine in Brussels on 17th and 18th November 2016, in collaboration with the European Rhinologic Society (ERS) and the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). One hundred and thirty participants (medical doctors from different specialties, researchers, as well as patients and industry representatives) from 27 countries took part in the multiple perspective discussions including brainstorming sessions on care pathways and research needs in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis. The debates started with an overview of the current state of the art, including weaknesses and strengths of the current practices, followed by the identification of essential research needs, thoroughly integrated in the context of Precision Medicine (PM), with personalized care, prediction of success of treatment, participation of the patient and prevention of disease as key principles for improving current clinical practices. This report provides a concise summary of the outcomes of the brainstorming sessions of the European Rhinology Research Forum 2016

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

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. </p

Nasal hyper-reactivity is a common feature in both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

Nasal hyper-reactivity is an increased sensitivity of the nasal mucosa to various nonspecific stimuli. Both allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) patients can elicit nasal hyper-reactivity symptoms. Differences in the prevalence or type of nasal hyper-reactivity in AR and NAR patients are largely unknown. In this study, we quantitatively and qualitatively assessed nasal hyper-reactivity in AR and NAR. In the first part, an analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed to reveal patient-reported symptoms of hyper-reactivity. In the second part, cold dry air provocation (CDA) was performed as a hyper-reactivity measure in AR and NAR patients and healthy controls, and symptoms scores, nasal secretions and peak nasal inspiratory flow were measured. Comparisons were made between AR and NAR patients in both studies. The database analysis revealed high hyper-reactivity prevalence in AR (63.4%) and NAR (66.9%). There were no differences between AR and NAR in terms of the number or type of hyper-reactivity stimuli. Hyper-reactivity to physical stimuli did not exclude a response to chemical stimuli, or vice versa. CDA provocation resulted in a significant increase in rhinitis symptoms and the amount of nasal secretions in AR and NAR patients, but not in controls. We found no quantitative or qualitative differences in nasal hyper-reactivity between AR and NAR patients. It is not possible to differentiate NAR subpopulations based on physical or chemical stimul

Non-allergic rhinitis : position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

This EAACI position paper aims at providing a state-of-the-art overview on nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). A significant number of patients suffering from persistent rhinitis are defined as nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis (NANIR) patients, often denominated in short as having NAR. NAR is defined as a symptomatic inflammation of the nasal mucosa with the presence of a minimum of two nasal symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and/or itchy nose, without clinical evidence of endonasal infection and without systemic signs of sensitization to inhalant allergens. Symptoms of NAR may have a wide range of severity and be either continuously present and/or induced by exposure to unspecific triggers, also called nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR). NHR represents a clinical feature of both AR and NAR patients. NAR involves different subgroups: drug-induced rhinitis, (nonallergic) occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis (including pregnancy rhinitis), gustatory rhinitis, senile rhinitis, and idiopathic rhinitis (IR). NAR should be distinguished from those rhinitis patients with an allergic reaction confined to the nasal mucosa, also called entopy or local allergic rhinitis (LAR). We here provide an overview of the current consensus on phenotypes of NAR, recommendations for diagnosis, a treatment algorithm, and defining the unmet needs in this neglected area of research

Real-life assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis patients using mobile technology

C

Real-life assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis patients using mobile technology: The mySinusitisCoach project by EUFOREA

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with a substantial personal and socioeconomic burden. Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes by mobile technology offers the possibility to better understand real-life burden of CRS. Methods: This study reports on the cross-sectional evaluation of data of 626 users of mySinusitisCoach (mSC), a mobile application for CRS patients. Patient characteristics of mSC users were analysed as well as the level of disease control based on VAS global rhinosinusitis symptom score and adapted EPOS criteria. Results: The mSC cohort represents a heterogeneous group of CRS patients with a diverse pattern of major symptoms. Approximately half of patients reported nasal polyps. 47.3% of all CRS patients were uncontrolled based on evaluation of VAS global rhinosinusitis symptom score compared to 40.9% based on adapted EPOS criteria. The impact of CRS on sleep quality and daily life activities was significantly higher in uncontrolled versus well-controlled patients. Half of patients had a history of FESS (functional endoscopic sinus surgery) and reported lower symptom severity compared to patients without a history of FESS, except for patients with a history of more than 3 procedures. Patients with a history of FESS reported higher VAS levels for impaired smell. Conclusion: Real-life data confirm the high disease burden in uncontrolled CRS patients, clearly impacting quality of life. Sinus surgery improves patient-reported outcomes, but not in patients with a history of more than 3 procedures. Mobile technology opens a new era of real-life monitoring, supporting the evolution of care towards precision medicine

EPOS2020:development strategy and goals for the latest European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND: The European Position Papers on Rhinosinusitis from 2005, 2007 and 2012 have had a measurable impact on the way this common condition with high impact on quality of life is managed around the world. EPOS2020 will be the latest iteration of the guideline, addressing new stakeholders and target users, presenting a summary of the latest literature and evolving treatment modalities, and formulating clear recommendations based on all available evidence. METHODOLOGY: Based on the AGREE II framework, this article demonstrates how the EPOS2020 steering group will address six key areas to ensure consistency in quality and presentation of information in the latest rhinosinusitis clinical practice guideline: scope and purpose; stakeholder involvement; rigour of development; clarity of presentation; recommendations and applicability; editorial independence. RESULTS: By analysing the guidance from AGREE II, we formulated a detailed development strategy for EPOS2020. We identify new stakeholders and target users and ratify the importance of patient involvement in the latest EPOS guideline. New and expanded areas of research to be addressed are highlighted. We confirm our intention to use mixed methodologies, combining evidence-based medicine with real life studies; when no evidence can be found, use Delphi rounds to achieve clear, inclusive recommendations. We also introduce new concepts for dissemination of the guideline, using Internet and social media to improve accessibility. CONCLUSION: This article is an introduction to the EPOS2020 project, and presents the key goals, core stakeholders, planned methodology and dissemination strategies for the latest version of this influential guideline