Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Clinical Effects and Response Time of Biological Drugs in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps Patients: Real‐life Experience

Clinical Effects and Response Time of Biological Drugs in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal... INTRODUCTIONOver the past two decades, the understanding of Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) has evolved significantly, providing new insights into its pathophysiological mechanisms. This evolution has paved the way from basic phenotyping to more nuanced endotyping, shifting the focus from eosinophilic inflammation to type 2 immunity, and from the traditional ventilation‐drainage paradigm to a mucosal concept for therapeutic considerations. The advent of endotyping, which classifies CRS based on pathophysiological characteristics, has improved our understanding of the heterogeneous nature of the disease, facilitating better diagnosis and treatment approaches.Classification of CRS has traditionally been based on the presence of nasal polyps, with the two main categories being CRSwNP and CRSsNP. However, recent advances have led to the introduction of a more detailed classification based on immunopathological profiles. Type 2 inflammation, the most common form of CRSwNP in Western populations, is characterized by elevated eosinophils, IgE, and interleukins such as IL‐4, IL‐5, and IL‐13.The standard treatments for CRS include the use of corticosteroids and surgical intervention. However, the recurrence of symptoms is a common occurrence, necessitating further surgical procedures. The use of biologic agents that target type 2 inflammation has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP.The selection of appropriate patients, biologics, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Laryngoscope Wiley

Clinical Effects and Response Time of Biological Drugs in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps Patients: Real‐life Experience

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/clinical-effects-and-response-time-of-biological-drugs-in-chronic-SkYK3dzSvx

References (49)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2025 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
ISSN
0023-852X
eISSN
1531-4995
DOI
10.1002/lary.31948
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONOver the past two decades, the understanding of Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) has evolved significantly, providing new insights into its pathophysiological mechanisms. This evolution has paved the way from basic phenotyping to more nuanced endotyping, shifting the focus from eosinophilic inflammation to type 2 immunity, and from the traditional ventilation‐drainage paradigm to a mucosal concept for therapeutic considerations. The advent of endotyping, which classifies CRS based on pathophysiological characteristics, has improved our understanding of the heterogeneous nature of the disease, facilitating better diagnosis and treatment approaches.Classification of CRS has traditionally been based on the presence of nasal polyps, with the two main categories being CRSwNP and CRSsNP. However, recent advances have led to the introduction of a more detailed classification based on immunopathological profiles. Type 2 inflammation, the most common form of CRSwNP in Western populations, is characterized by elevated eosinophils, IgE, and interleukins such as IL‐4, IL‐5, and IL‐13.The standard treatments for CRS include the use of corticosteroids and surgical intervention. However, the recurrence of symptoms is a common occurrence, necessitating further surgical procedures. The use of biologic agents that target type 2 inflammation has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP.The selection of appropriate patients, biologics,

Journal

The Laryngoscope – Wiley

Published: May 1, 2025

Keywords: Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps; dupilumab; mepolizumab; omalizumab; quality of life

There are no references for this article.