Prescribing Practices and Barriers of Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis Amongst Otolaryngologists.

OBJECTIVE(S): Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) are an evolving therapeutic option, but there are limited data on physician experiences in prescribing them. The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of these experiences including prescribing practices, patient factors which guide prescriber decision, and physician and patient-reported issues which might limit cost-effectiveness of these therapies. METHODS: A survey was distributed to attending otolaryngologists using the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology (CSOHNS) email distribution and eSurvey program. Responses were tabulated for the entire cohort and compared between rhinologists and non-rhinologists where appropriate. Frequencies and proportions were expressed as a percentage of total respondents. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis between groups. RESULTS: Seventy-nine total survey responses were recorded representing a response rate of 43%. Significantly more rhinologists reported prescribing biologic medications on their own (100% vs. 50%; p < 0.001) and a higher proportion (1 to 10% vs. <1%) of their patients were on biologics compared with non-rhinologists (p = 0.023). Rhinologists were more likely to consider poor response to medical therapies, need for rescue steroids, and comorbid type 2 conditions in their decision to pursue biologics than non-rhinologists, but they also experienced poorer assistance from patient support programs and less availability to medications. CONCLUSION: Rhinologists are more comfortable with prescribing and managing biologics for CRSwNP compared with non-rhinologist colleagues. Clinicians prescribing biologic medications for CRSwNP should be familiar with guidelines, indications, and potential adverse events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

Remission: does it already exist in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis?

BACKGROUND: Remission, defined as absence of symptoms and objective markers of disease, is emerging as the penultimate goal in the management of several chronic diseases. The concept of remission, well-established in Rheumatology as well as Gastroenterology, is currently emerging in Respiratory Medicine for asthma. It is interesting to consider whether the disease remission concept might successfully be applied to Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this letter is to explore the evidence supporting the concept of remission under continued medical therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. METHODS: The authors reviewed the literature and summarized studies in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis evaluating for evidence of clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic remission. RESULTS: Findings of the studies revealed that endoscopic sinus surgery with continued medical therapy achieved remission in approximately 50% of all patients. CRSwNP patients after primary endoscopic sinus surgery were able to achieve remission in 72% of instances, however this drops to 42% for patients having revision sinus surgery. For CRSwNP patients with co-morbidities such as asthma and aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, remission rate drops to 23% and 23.5%, respectively compared to non-asthmatic CRSwNP patients who present a remission rate under continued medical therapy of 60%. CONCLUSION: Remission of symptoms and evidence of disease under medical therapy is indeed a concept achievable in patients with CRSwNP, as demonstrated by studies in the literature. Various co-morbidities, notably asthma, apparently influence rate of remission. Better defining this outcome through consensus-based definitions will allow for the development of strategies in CRSwNP care that can help affected patients attain complete relief from clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic markers of CRS with judicious use of medication and surgery. Future efforts will attempt to improve on these outcomes by achieving symptomatic and endoscopic control of disease following cessation of therapy, potentially paving the way towards clinical remission or a 'cure' in CRS.

Canadian multidisciplinary expert consensus on the use of biologics in upper airways: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective. METHODS: A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61. RESULTS: After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease. CONCLUSION: This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

A Clinical Decision Analysis for Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Nonabsorbable Nasal Packing.

OBJECTIVE: Nonabsorbable nasal packing is often placed for the treatment of epistaxis or after sinonasal or skull base surgery. Antibiotics are often prescribed to prevent toxic shock syndrome (TSS), a rare, potentially fatal occurrence. However, the risk of TSS must be balanced against the major risk of antibiotic use, specifically Clostridium difficile colitis (CDC). The purpose of this study is to evaluate in terms of cost-effectiveness whether antibiotics should be prescribed when nasal packing is placed. STUDY DESIGN: A clinical decision analysis was performed using a Markov model to evaluate whether antibiotics should be given. SETTING: Patients with nonabsorbable nasal packing placed. METHODS: Utility scores, probabilities, and costs were obtained from the literature. We assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic use when the risk of community-acquired CDC is balanced against the risk of TSS from nasal packing. Sensitivity analysis was performed for assumptions used in the model. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for antibiotic use was 334,493 US dollars (USD)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that not prescribing antibiotics was cost-effective in 98.0% of iterations at a willingness to pay of 50,000 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that when the risk of CDC from antibiotics was greater than 910/100,000 or when the incidence of TSS after nasal packing was less than 49/100,000 cases, the decision to withhold antibiotics was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Routine antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of nasal packing is not cost-effective and should be reconsidered. Even if antibiotics are assumed to prevent TSS, the risk of complications from antibiotic use is of greater consequence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3a.