Digitally-enabled, person-centred care (PCC) in allergen immunotherapy: An ARIA-EAACI Position Paper.

In rhinitis and asthma, several mHealth apps have been developed but only a few have been validated. However, these apps have a high potential for improving person-centred care (PCC), especially in allergen immunotherapy (AIT). They can provide support in AIT initiation by selecting the appropriate patient and allergen shared decision-making. They can also help in (i) the evaluation of (early) efficacy, (ii) early and late stopping rules and (iii) the evaluation of (carried-over) efficacy after cessation of the treatment course. Future perspectives have been formulated in the first report of a joint task force (TF)-Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)-on digital biomarkers. The TF on AIT now aims to (i) outline the potential of the clinical applications of mHealth solutions, (ii) express their current limitations, (iii) make proposals regarding further developments for both clinical practice and scientific purpose and (iv) suggest which of the tools might best comply with the purpose of digitally-enabled PCC in AIT.

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). RESULTS: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. CONCLUSION: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

Standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy in allergic asthma: An EAACI position paper.

INTRODUCTION: In allergic asthma patients, one of the more common phenotypes might benefit from allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as add-on intervention to pharmacological treatment. AIT is a treatment with disease-modifying modalities, the evidence for efficacy is based on controlled clinical trials following standardized endpoint measures. However, so far there is a lack of a consensus for asthma endpoints in AIT trials. The aim of a task force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is evaluating several outcome measures for AIT in allergic asthma. METHODS: The following domains of outcome measures in asthmatic patients have been evaluated for this position paper (PP): (i) exacerbation rate, (ii) lung function, (iii) ICS withdrawal, (iv) symptoms and rescue medication use, (v) questionnaires (PROMS), (vi) bronchial/nasal provocation, (vii) allergen exposure chambers (AEC) and (viii) biomarkers. RESULTS: Exacerbation rate can be used as a reliable objective primary outcome; however, there is limited evidence due to different definitions of exacerbation. The time after ICS withdrawal to first exacerbation is considered a primary outcome measure. Besides, the advantages and disadvantages and clinical implications of further domains of asthma endpoints in AIT trials are elaborated in this PP. CONCLUSION: This EAACI-PP aims to highlight important aspects of current asthma measures by critically evaluating their applicability for controlled trials of AIT.

Different aspects of severe asthma in real life: Role of Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins and correlation to comorbidities and disease severity.

BACKGROUND: Asthma, with several phenotypes and endotypes, is considered particularly suited for precision medicine. The identification of different non-invasive biomarkers may facilitate diagnosis and treatment. Recently, Staphylococcus aureus and its enterotoxins (SE) have been found to have a role in inducing persistent type 2 airway inflammation in severe asthma, but also in such comorbidities as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). METHODS: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prevalence of SE-IgE sensitization in a multicentric Italian cohort of severe asthmatic patients and correlate it with demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included in the analysis, out of which 25.3% were staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB)-IgE positive. We found a meaningful association between SEB-IgE and female gender, a positive association was also measured between CRS and CRSwNP. No significant association was found between SEB-IgE sensitization and atopy, the occurrence of exacerbations and corticosteroid dosages. In the SEB-IgE-positive patient, blood eosinophil count does not appear to be correlated with the severity of the disease. Patients with SEB-IgE sensitization are, on average, younger and with an earlier disease onset, thus confirming the possibility to consider SEB-IgE sensitization as an independent risk factor for developing asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that the search for SE in the initial screening phase of these patients is helpful to better phenotype them, may predict the evolution of comorbidities and lead to a targeted therapeutic choice; in this point of view this represents a goal of precision medicine.

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.

Patient-centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA-EAACI approach - ARIA-EAACI Task Force Report.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and a clinical diagnosis of NSAID-ERD: Results from two randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: About one-tenth of patients with difficult-to-treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have comorbid non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD). Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13 receptor component, is an approved add-on treatment in severe CRSwNP. This post hoc analysis evaluated dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with CRSwNP with/without NSAID-ERD. METHODS: Data were pooled from the phase 3 SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 studies in adults with uncontrolled severe CRSwNP who received dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks. CRSwNP, nasal airflow, lung function, and asthma control outcomes at Week 24 were evaluated, and treatment-subgroup interactions were assessed for patients with and without NSAID-ERD. RESULTS: Of 724 patients, 204 (28.2%) had a diagnosis of NSAID-ERD. At Week 24, least squares mean treatment differences demonstrated significant improvements in nasal polyp score, nasal congestion (NC), Lund-Mackay computed tomography, 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), Total Symptom Score (TSS), rhinosinusitis severity visual analog scale, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), six-item Asthma Control Questionnaire score, and improvement in smell with dupilumab versus placebo (all p < .0001) in patients with NSAID-ERD. Treatment comparisons demonstrated significantly greater improvements with dupilumab in patients with versus without NSAID-ERD for NC (p = .0044), SNOT-22 (p = .0313), TSS (p = .0425), and PNIF (p = .0123). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled severe CRSwNP, dupilumab significantly improved objective measures and patient-reported symptoms to a greater extent in the presence of comorbid NSAID-ERD than without. Dupilumab was well tolerated in patients with/without NSAID-ERD.

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.

Behavioural patterns in allergic rhinitis medication in Europe: A study using MASK-air® real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Co-medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis-related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co-medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real-world data. METHODS: We analysed 2015-2020 MASK-air® European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co-medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms ('VAS Global Symptoms') and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year. RESULTS: We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co-medication. The median 'VAS Global Symptoms' was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co-medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H1 -antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co-medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions. One third of treatment days involved co-medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co-medication use is driven by symptom severity.

Development and validation of combined symptom-medication scores for allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Validated combined symptom-medication scores (CSMSs) are needed to investigate the effects of allergic rhinitis treatments. This study aimed to use real-life data from the MASK-air® app to generate and validate hypothesis- and data-driven CSMSs. METHODS: We used MASK-air® data to assess the concurrent validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness of one hypothesis-driven CSMS (modified CSMS: mCSMS), one mixed hypothesis- and data-driven score (mixed score), and several data-driven CSMSs. The latter were generated with MASK-air® data following cluster analysis and regression models or factor analysis. These CSMSs were compared with scales measuring (i) the impact of rhinitis on work productivity (visual analogue scale [VAS] of work of MASK-air® , and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Allergy Specific [WPAI-AS]), (ii) quality-of-life (EQ-5D VAS) and (iii) control of allergic diseases (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test [CARAT]). RESULTS: We assessed 317,176 days of MASK-air® use from 17,780 users aged 16-90 years, in 25 countries. The mCSMS and the factor analyses-based CSMSs displayed poorer validity and responsiveness compared to the remaining CSMSs. The latter displayed moderate-to-strong correlations with the tested comparators, high test-retest reliability and moderate-to-large responsiveness. Among data-driven CSMSs, a better performance was observed for cluster analyses-based CSMSs. High accuracy (capacity of discriminating different levels of rhinitis control) was observed for the latter (AUC-ROC = 0.904) and for the mixed CSMS (AUC-ROC = 0.820). CONCLUSION: The mixed CSMS and the cluster-based CSMSs presented medium-high validity, reliability and accuracy, rendering them as candidates for primary endpoints in future rhinitis trials.

Heterogeneity of the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis in Europe based on MIDAS and OTCims platforms.

BACKGROUND: The practice of allergology varies widely between countries, and the costs and sales for the treatment of rhinitis differ depending on practices and health systems. To understand these differences and their implications, the rhinitis market was studied in some of the EU countries. METHODS: We conducted a pharmaco-epidemiological database analysis to assess the medications that were being prescribed for allergic rhinitis in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. We used the IQVIA platforms for prescribed medicines (MIDAS®- Meaningful Integration of Data, Analytics and Services) and for OTC medicines (OTC International Market Tracking-OTCims). We selected the five most important markets in the EU (France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain). RESULTS: Intranasal decongestants were excluded from the analyses because they are rarely prescribed for allergic rhinitis. For both Standard Units (SU) and costs, France is leading the other countries. In terms of SU, the four other countries are similar. For costs, Poland is lower than the three others. However, medication use differs largely. For 2018, in SU, intranasal corticosteroid is the first treatment in Poland (70.0%), France (51.3%), Spain (51.1%) and Germany (50.3%), whereas the Italian market is dominated by systemic antihistamines (41.4%) followed by intranasal corticosteroids (30.1%). Results of other years were similar. DISCUSSION: There are major differences between countries in terms of rhinoconjunctivitis medication usage.

ARIA-EAACI statement on severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines - An EAACI-ARIA Position Paper.

Further to the approval of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine BNT162b2, several severe anaphylaxis cases occured within the first few days of public vaccination. An investigation is taking place to understand the cases and their triggers. The vaccine will be administered to a large number of individuals worldwide and there are raising concerns that severe adverse events might occur. With the current information, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) states its position for the following preliminary recommendations that are to be revised as soon as more data emerge. To minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions in vaccinated individuals, it is urgently required to understand the specific nature of the reported severe allergic reactions, including the background medical history of the individuals affected and the mechanisms involved. To achieve this goal, all clinical and laboratory information should be collected and reported. Mild and moderate allergic patients should not be excluded from the vaccine as this could have a significant impact on reaching the goal of population immunity. Healthcare practitioners vaccinating against COVID-19 are required to be sufficiently prepared to recognize and treat anaphylaxis properly with the ability to administer adrenaline. Further to vaccine administration, a mandatory observation period of at least 15 minutes should be followed for all individuals. The current data have not shown any higher risk for patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or asthma, and this message should be clearly stated by physicians to enable our patients to trust the vaccine. More than 30% of the population suffers from allergic diseases and the benefit of the vaccination clearly outweighs the risk of severe COVID-19 development.

Management of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly.

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients.

Spices to Control COVID-19 Symptoms: Yes, but Not Only .

There are large country variations in COVID-19 death rates that may be partly explained by diet. Many countries with low COVID-19 death rates have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented vegetables such as cabbage and, in some continents, various spices. Fermented vegetables and spices are agonists of the antioxidant transcription factor nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (Nrf2), and spices are transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 and vanillin 1 (TRPA1/V1) agonists. These mechanisms may explain many COVID-19 symptoms and severity. It appears that there is a synergy between Nrf2 and TRPA1/V1 foods that may explain the role of diet in COVID-19. One of the mechanisms of COVID-19 appears to be an oxygen species (ROS)-mediated process in synergy with TRP channels, modulated by Nrf2 pathways. Spicy foods are likely to desensitize TRP channels and act in synergy with exogenous antioxidants that activate the Nrf2 pathway.

Potential Interplay between Nrf2, TRPA1, and TRPV1 in Nutrients for the Control of COVID-19.

In this article, we propose that differences in COVID-19 morbidity may be associated with transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) and/or transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) activation as well as desensitization. TRPA1 and TRPV1 induce inflammation and play a key role in the physiology of almost all organs. They may augment sensory or vagal nerve discharges to evoke pain and several symptoms of COVID-19, including cough, nasal obstruction, vomiting, diarrhea, and, at least partly, sudden and severe loss of smell and taste. TRPA1 can be activated by reactive oxygen species and may therefore be up-regulated in COVID-19. TRPA1 and TRPV1 channels can be activated by pungent compounds including many nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2) (Nrf2)-interacting foods leading to channel desensitization. Interactions between Nrf2-associated nutrients and TRPA1/TRPV1 may be partly responsible for the severity of some of the COVID-19 symptoms. The regulation by Nrf2 of TRPA1/TRPV1 is still unclear, but suggested from very limited clinical evidence. In COVID-19, it is proposed that rapid desensitization of TRAP1/TRPV1 by some ingredients in foods could reduce symptom severity and provide new therapeutic strategies.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) generally have a high symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life, often requiring recurring systemic corticosteroid use and repeated sinus surgery. Dupilumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits signalling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation, and has been approved for use in atopic dermatitis and asthma. In these two studies, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with CRSwNP despite previous treatment with systemic corticosteroids, surgery, or both. METHODS: LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52 were two multinational, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies assessing dupilumab added to standard of care in adults with severe CRSwNP. SINUS-24 was done in 67 centres in 13 countries, and SINUS-52 was done in 117 centres in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with bilateral CRSwNP and symptoms despite intranasal corticosteroid use, receiving systemic corticosteroids in the preceding 2 years, or having had sinonasal surgery. Patients in SINUS-24 were randomly assigned (1:1) to subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Patients in SINUS-52 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks for 52 weeks, dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then every 4 weeks for the remaining 28 weeks, or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. All patients were randomly assigned centrally with a permuted block randomisation schedule. Randomisation was stratified by asthma or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease status at screening, previous surgery at screening, and country. Patients with or without comorbid asthma were included. Coprimary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 24 in nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion or obstruction, and sinus Lund-Mackay CT scores (a coprimary endpoint in Japan), done in an intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in a pooled population of both dupilumab groups in SINUS-52 up to week 24 and the dupilumab group in SINUS-24 and the placebo groups in both studies until week 24. The trials are complete and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02912468 and NCT02898454. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2016, and Aug 3, 2017, 276 patients were enrolled in SINUS-24, with 143 in the dupilumab group and 133 in the placebo group receiving at least one study drug dose. Between Nov 28, 2016, and Aug 28, 2017, 448 patients were enrolled in SINUS-52, with 150 receiving at least one dose of dupilumab every 2 weeks, 145 receiving at least one dose of dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and every 4 weeks until week 52, and 153 receiving at least one dose of placebo. Dupilumab significantly improved the coprimary endpoints in both studies. At 24 weeks, least squares mean difference in NPS of dupilumab treatment versus placebo was -2·06 (95% CI -2·43 to -1·69; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -1·80 (-2·10 to -1·51; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52; difference in nasal congestion or obstruction score was -0·89 (-1·07 to -0·71; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -0·87 (-1·03 to -0·71; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52; and difference in Lund-Mackay CT scores was -7·44 (-8·35 to -6·53; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -5·13 (-5·80 to -4·46; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52. The most common adverse events (nasopharyngitis, worsening of nasal polyps and asthma, headache, epistaxis, and injection-site erythema) were more frequent with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adult patients with severe CRSwNP, dupilumab reduced polyp size, sinus opacification, and severity of symptoms and was well tolerated. These results support the benefits of adding dupilumab to daily standard of care for patients with severe CRSwNP who otherwise have few therapeutic options. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

High mortality in COVID-19 patients with mild respiratory disease.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected 189 000 people in Italy, with more than 25 000 deaths. Several predictive factors of mortality have been identified; however, none has been validated in patients presenting with mild disease. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2, presenting with mild symptoms, and requiring hospitalization in a non-intensive care unit with known discharge status were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed. Demographical, clinical and biochemical parameters were recorded, as need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation and admission in intensive care unit. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of death. RESULTS: Between 28 February and 10 April 2020, 229 consecutive patients were included in the study cohort; the majority were males with a mean age of 60 years. 54% of patients had at least one comorbidity, with hypertension being the most commonly represented, followed by diabetes mellitus. 196 patients were discharged after a mean of 9 days, while 14.4% died during hospitalization because of respiratory failure. Age higher than 75 years, low platelet count (<150 × 103 /mm3 ) and higher ferritin levels (>750 ng/mL) were independent predictors of death. Comorbidities were not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 presenting with mild symptoms is high and is associated with older age, platelet count and ferritin levels. Identifying early predictors of outcome can be useful in the clinical practice to better stratify and manage patients with COVID-19.