Assessing Cut-off Points of Eosinophils, Nasal Polyp, and Lund-Mackay Scores to Predict Surgery in Nasal Polyposis : A Real-World Study

Background: Developing tools to identify chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) patients requiring surgical treatment would help clinicians treat patients more effectively. The aim of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to identify cut-off values for eosinophil percentage, nasal polyps (NP), and Lund-Mackay (LM) scores that may predict the need for surgical treatment in Finnish CRSwNP patients. Methods: Data of CRSwNP patients (N = 378) undergoing consultation for ESS in 2001-19 were used. Data was collected from patient records and Lund-Mackay scores were determined from sinus computed tomography scans. The percentage of eosinophils was microscopically evaluated from the polyp samples available (n = 81). Associations were analyzed by Mann Whitney U test, and cut-off values by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: ESS was performed to 293 (77.5%) of patients. Polyp eosinophilia was associated significantly with ESS (p = 0.001), whereas peripheral blood eosinophil count, LM- score and endoscopic NP- score were not (p > 0.05). AUROC values (95% CI) for detecting those needing ESS were for polyp eosinophilia 0.71 (0.60-0.83), p = 0.001, for LM score 0.59 (0.50-0.67), p = 0.054; for NP score 0.56 (0.48-0.64), p = 0.17, and for blood eosinophil count 0.68 (0.46-0.90), p = 0.08. With the threshold value of polyp eosinophilia (>25%), the sensitivity and specificity were optimal for detecting the group needing ESS from the group not undergoing ESS. The cut-off value of blood eosinophil count (>0.26 x 10(9)/L) had relatively good, yet statistically insignificant (underpowered), predictive potential. Moderate cut-off values were found for endoscopic LM score (>= 14/24) and NP score (>= 4/8). Conclusions: Polyp eosinophilia (>25%) predicted ESS among Finnish hospital-level CRSwNP patients. A future challenge would be to find less invasive and cost-effective clinical factors predicting uncontrolled CRSwNP.Peer reviewe

Multi-Disciplinary Expert Perspective on the Management of Type 2 Inflammation-Driven Severe CRSwNP: A Brief Overview of Pathophysiology and Recent Clinical Insights

Sanna Toppila-Salmi,1,2 Leif Bjermer,3 Lars-Olaf Cardell,4,5 Anders Cervin,6,7 Tuuli Heinikari,2 Lauri Lehtimäki,8,9 Marie Lundberg,10 Jens C Richter,11 Saara Sillanpää9,12 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kuopio University Hospital and School of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; 2Skin and Allergy Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; 3Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 4Division of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 5Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; 6Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 7Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 8Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 9Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 10Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; 11Department of Asthma and Allergology, Clinic of Lung Medicine, Skåne University Hospital and Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 12Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, FinlandCorrespondence: Sanna Toppila-Salmi, Haartmaninkatu 3, Haartman Institute, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland, Email [email protected]: Severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a disabling airway disease that significantly impacts patients’ lives through the severity of symptoms, the need for long-term medical treatment and the high risk of recurrence post-surgery. Biological agents targeting type 2 immune responses underlying the pathogenesis of CRSwNP have shown effectiveness in reducing polyp size and eosinophilic infiltrate, and in decreasing the need for additional sinus surgeries. However, despite recent progress in understanding and treating the disease, type 2 inflammation-driven severe CRSwNP continues to pose challenges to clinical management due to several factors such as persistent inflammation, polyp recurrence, heterogeneity of disease, and comorbidities. This article presents the findings of a scientific discussion involving a panel of ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists and pulmonologists across Sweden and Finland. The discussion aimed to explore current management practices for type 2 inflammation-driven severe CRSwNP in the Nordic region. The main topics examined encompassed screening and referral, measurements of disease control, treatment goals, and future perspectives. The experts emphasized the importance of a collaborative approach in the management of this challenging patient population. The discussion also revealed a need to broaden treatment options for patients with type 2 inflammation-driven CRSwNP and comorbid conditions with shared type 2 pathophysiology. In light of the supporting evidence, a shift in the disease model from the presence of polyps to that of type 2 inflammation may be warranted. Overall, this discussion provides valuable insights for the scientific community and can potentially guide the future management of CRSwNP.Keywords: chronic rhinosinusitis, type 2 immunity, surgery, biological therapy, Nordic countries, collaboratio

Pre-asthma : a useful concept? A EUFOREA paper. Part 2—late onset eosinophilic asthma

Peer reviewe

Digital Health Europe (DHE) Twinning on Severe Asthma—Kick-off Meeting Report

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020

The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com

Academic productivity of young people with allergic rhinitis:A MASK-air® study

Peer reviewe

Consistent Trajectories of Rhinitis Control and Treatment in 16,177 Weeks: The MASK‐air® Longitudinal Study

Introduction: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. Methods: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. Results: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD = 39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. Conclusions: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Comparison of Rhinitis Treatments Using MASK-air ® Data and Considering the Minimal Important Difference

Background: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. Methods: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. Results: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). Conclusion: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks: The MASK-air® longitudinal study

Introduction: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. Methods: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. Results: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD = 39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. Conclusions: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms