Yardstick for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory condition of the paranasal sinuses defined by classic symptoms, imaging findings, or endoscopic findings. There are a growing number of emerging pharmacologic therapies being evaluated to treat patients with CRS, some of which have gained indication status in the United States. There have not been updated treatment guidelines published in the United States however since 2014. This document is meant to serve as an updated expert consensus document for the pharmacologic management of patients with CRS. We review available data focusing on prospective clinical trials on oral and intranasal corticosteroids, nasal irrigation, biologics, antibiotics, and allergy immunotherapy for CRS both with and without nasal polyposis, including specific therapies for aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease-associated CRS and allergic fungal CRS. There are multiple options to treat CRS, and clinicians should be knowledgeable on the efficacy and risks of these available therapies. Allergists-immunologists now have various therapies available to treat patients with CRS.

Impact of type 2 targeting biologics on acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) are associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. There are sparse data assessing the real-world impact of biologics on AECRS. Objectives: We sought to determine the impact of type 2-targeting biologics on the frequency of medication use for AECRS episodes. Methods: Antibiotic and/or systemic corticosteroid courses for AECRS were identified in a retrospective study from November 2015 to February 2020, at a single academic health system. The estimated yearly rates for antibiotic and corticosteroid courses were evaluated before and after initiation of type 2 biologics. Results: One-hundred and sixty-five patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) had received either omalizumab (n = 12), mepolizumab (n = 42), benralizumab (n = 44), dupilumab (n = 61), or reslizumab (n = 6). Seventy percent had CRS with nasal polyps, and 30% had CRS without nasal polyps. All the patients had asthma. When all the biologics were combined, the estimated yearly rate for antibiotics for AECRS decreased from 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.59) to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.52-0.88) with biologic use (49% reduction, p < 0.001). Those with frequent AECRS (three or more courses of antibiotics in the 1 year before biologic use) had a larger degree of reduction, with an estimated yearly rate of 4.15 (95% CI, 3.79-4.55) to 1.58 (95% CI, 1.06-2.35) with biologic use (n = 27; 62% reduction; p < 0.001). Within the total cohort, the estimated yearly rate for systemic corticosteroids for AECRS decreased from 1.69 (95% CI, 1.42-2.02) to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.88) with biologic use (60% reduction; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Type 2-targeting biologics reduced medication use for AECRS. This suggested that biologics may be a therapeutic option for patients with frequent AECRS.

Hepatic dysfunction in ambulatory patients with heart failure: application of the MELD scoring system for outcome prediction.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and its modified versions, which are established measures of liver dysfunction, as a tool to assess heart transplantation (HTx) urgency in ambulatory patients with heart failure. BACKGROUND: Liver abnormalities have a prognostic impact on the outcome of patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 343 patients undergoing HTx evaluation between 2005 and 2009. The prognostic effectiveness of MELD and 2 modifications (MELDNa [includes serum sodium levels] and MELD-XI [does not include international normalized ratio]) for endpoint events, defined as death/HTx/ventricular assist device requirement, was evaluated in our cohort and in subgroups of patients on and off oral anticoagulation. RESULTS: The MELD and MELDNa scores were excellent predictors for 1-year endpoint events (areas under the curve: 0.71 and 0.73, respectively). High scores (>12) were strongly associated with poor survival at 1 year (MELD 69.3% vs. 90.4% [p < 0.0001]; MELDNa 70.4% vs. 96.9% [p < 0.0001]). Increased scores were associated with increased risk for HTx (hazard ratio: 1.10 [95% confidence interval: 1.06 to 1.14]; p < 0.0001 for both scores), which was independent of other known risk factors (MELD p = 0.0055; MELDNa p = 0.0083). Anticoagulant use was associated with poor survival at 1 year (73.7% vs. 86.4%; p = 0.0118), and the statistical significance of MELD/MELDNa was higher in patients not receiving oral anticoagulation therapy. MELD-XI was a fair but limited predictor of the endpoint events in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of liver dysfunction according to the MELD scoring system provides additional risk information in ambulatory patients with heart failure.