RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a multifactorial inflammatory disease of the mucous membranes of the nose and sinuses. Eosinophilic inflammation is described as a common endotype. The anti-IL-5 antibody mepolizumab was approved in November 2021 as an add-on therapy to intranasal glucocorticosteroids for the treatment of adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps when systemic glucocorticosteroids or surgery do not provide adequate disease control. While national and international recommendations exist for the use of mepolizumab in CRSwNP, it has not yet been adequately specified how this therapy should be monitored, what follow-up documentation is necessary, and when it should be discontinued if necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed to analyze previous data on the treatment of CRSwNP with mepolizumab and to determine the available evidence by searching Medline, Pubmed, the national and international trial and guideline registries, and the Cochrane Library. Human studies published in the period up to and including 10/2022 were considered. RESULTS: Based on the international literature and previous experience by an expert panel, recommendations for follow-up, adherence to therapy intervals, and possible therapy breaks as well as discontinuation of therapy when using mepolizumab for the indication CRSwNP in the German healthcare system are given on the basis of a documentation sheet. CONCLUSION: Understanding the immunological basis of CRSwNP opens up new non-surgical therapeutic approaches with biologics for patients with severe, uncontrolled courses. Here, we provide recommendations for follow-up, adherence to therapy intervals, possible therapy pauses, or discontinuation of therapy when mepolizumab is used as add-on therapy with intranasal glucocorticosteroids to treat adult patients with severe CRSwNP that cannot be adequately controlled with systemic glucocorticosteroids and/or surgical intervention.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future. CONCLUSION: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.
RESUMEN
BACKROUND: Visual analogue scales (VAS) are psychometric measuring instruments designed to document the characteristics of disease-related symptom severity in individual patients and use this to achieve a rapid (statistically measurable and reproducible) classification of symptom severity and disease control. VAS can also be used in routine patient history taking and to monitor the course of a chronic disease such as allergic rhinitis (AR). More specifically, the VAS has been used to assess effectiveness of AR therapy in real life, both in intermittent and persistent disease. METHODS: This position paper takes a detailed look at the historical development of VAS and its method-specific principles. Particular focus is put on aspects of practical application in daily routine and on a critical discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the individual methods. RESULTS: VAS are well validated for the measurement of AR symptoms and correlate well with the ARIA (allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma) severity classification and also correlated well with rTNSS and RQLQ. Moreover, several treatment studies on AR have used VAS as an evaluation parameter. Thanks to the use of new (real-life and real-time) communication technologies, such as smartphone apps, Discussion: VAS can be used relatively simply and highly effectively to assess disease control. The VAS lends itself very well to digitization and has now been incorporated into a smartphone app (called Allergy Diary) to assess AR control and direct treatment decisions as part of an AR clinical decision support system (CDSS). MASK Rhinitis has developed this app, which is currently available in 15 different languages.