Extreme weather conditions influence the frequency of epistaxis-related emergency room visits.

BACKGROUND: Climate change has been associated with an increase in extreme weather conditions. The aim of this study was to identify environmental factors and the effect of extreme weather events (95th percentile) on the risk for epistaxis-related emergency room visits (EV). METHODS: A total of 2179 epistaxis-related EVs were identified between 2015 and 2018. A distributed lag non-linear model was fitted to investigate the relationship between extreme weather conditions and the total number of epistaxis-related EVs per day. Cumulative relative risk (cRR) is defined as the cumulated daily risk of EV for epistaxis within a stated period after an extreme weather condition compared to the risk of EV at the median value of that weather condition. RESULTS: At a mean daily temperature of 27°C (P95), cRR for epistaxis-related EV was 2.00. At a relative humidity of 39% (P5), cRR was highest on day 3 at 1.59, while extremely high humidity (92%, P99) led to a decreased cRR of 0.7 on day 1. Intense precipitation of 24mm (P99) reduced the cRR on day 3 to 0.38. For prolonged extreme conditions over three days, extremely low wind speed, as well as both high and low atmospheric pressure events, diminished cRR. CONCLUSIONS: Extreme temperatures, relative humidity, and precipitation, as well as extended periods of extreme wind speeds and atmospheric pressure, significantly impact cRR for epistaxis-related EVs.

Efficacy and safety of switching between biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps or N-ERD.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is well-established. However, real-world experience on the effectiveness of transitioning between two monoclonal antibodies is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the safety and efficacy of antibody switching in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. METHODS: All patients with CRSwNP or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) requiring a switch between biologics were retrospectively studied. Analysis included changes in polyp size, quality of life parameters, asthma control, and side effects. RESULTS: Out of 195 patients treated with biologics for CRSwNP or N-ERD in our center, 23 (11.8%) required transition to a different monoclonal antibody. The majority switched from omalizumab to dupilumab (17/23, 73.9%), mostly due to inadequate symptom control. Nine out of these 17 patients (52.9%) were switched without a washout period. All patients showed significant improvement in nasal polyp score, asthma control test and sino-nasal outcome test-22 after changing to dupilumab. Keratoconjunctivitis sicca was the side-effect (4.3%) reported after the switch from omalizumab to dupilumab, which lead to termination of therapy in one patient. Due to limited sample size, other antibody transitions were reported in a descriptive manner. CONCLUSION: The transition to dupilumab is an effective option in patients with inadequate treatment response or side-effects of omalizumab in nasal polyposis. Our preliminary results indicate that a wash-out period may not be necessary when switching between biologics, however, these findings require further investigations. Other monoclonal antibody transitions also show promising results, but warrant validations in larger cohorts due to small patient samples in our study.