RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Responder analyses of SINUS phase 3 study data have shown clinically meaningful improvements across multiple chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) outcomes with dupilumab. OBJECTIVE: To gain a better understanding of dupilumab response dynamics over 52 weeks. METHODS: Post hoc analysis using data from the SINUS-52 (NCT02898454) intention-to-treat population, of patients with severe CRSwNP who received dupilumab 300 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w) or placebo. Response, defined as an improvement from baseline of ≥ 1 point for Nasal Polyp Score (NPS), nasal congestion (NC), and loss of smell (LoS), and ≥ 8.9 points for 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), was assessed for rapidity, maintenance, and durability. RESULTS: 303 patients (dupilumab, n = 150; placebo, n = 153) were included. For each outcome measure, a greater proportion of patients achieved first response by Week 16 (rapidity) with dupilumab vs placebo: NPS, 75.3% vs 39.2%; NC, 60.0% vs 24.2%; LoS, 60.7% vs 15.7%; and SNOT-22, 83.3% vs 66.0%. Among dupilumab patients with a response by Week 16, more than 80% maintained response at Week 52 (maintenance). Over 52 weeks, greater proportions of dupilumab patients were responders at ≥ 80% of time points: NPS, 46.7% vs 2.6%; NC, 46.7% vs 9.2%; LoS, 47.3% vs 3.9%; and SNOT-22, 62.0% vs 21.6% (durability). CONCLUSION: Most CRSwNP patients achieve clinically meaningful responses to dupilumab by Week 16, and most of these patients had maintenance and durability of response with continued treatment over time.
RESUMEN
Objectives: This post hoc analysis assessed disease characteristics and response to dupilumab treatment in male and female patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) (SINUS-52 study; NCT02898454). Methods: Patients received dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks on background intranasal corticosteroids. Efficacy was assessed through Week 52 using nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion/obstruction score, loss of smell score and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score. Disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Results: The analysis included 192 male and 111 female patients. Female patients had higher mean SNOT-22 total score (56.6 vs. 49.1, P < 0.01) and more coexisting asthma (78.4% vs. 46.4%, P < 0.0001) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD) (38.7% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.0001) than male patients, but other baseline characteristics were similar. Dupilumab significantly improved CRSwNP outcomes vs. placebo at Week 52, regardless of gender: least squares mean differences (95% confidence interval) for NPS were -2.33 (-2.80, -1.86) in male and -2.54 (-3.18, -1.90) in female patients (both P < 0.0001 vs. placebo), and for SNOT-22 were -19.2 (-24.1, -14.2) in male and -24.4 (-31.5, -17.3) in female patients (both P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). There were no significant efficacy-by-gender interactions. Conclusion: Female patients had greater asthma, NSAID-ERD and HRQoL burden at baseline than male patients. Dupilumab treatment significantly improved objective and subjective outcomes compared with placebo, irrespective of gender.
RESUMEN
Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript. Methods: This is a narrative review. Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it. Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the severity of the top 5 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) items ranked most important by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the effect of dupilumab on these items, and their association with objective disease measures. STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the SINUS-24 (NCT02912468) and SINUS-52 (NCT02898454) clinical trials. SETTING: Multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies. METHODS: Patients ranked the SNOT-22 items most affecting their health at baseline. Item symptom severity (0-5 scale) was assessed at baseline, Week 24 (W24), and Week 52 (W52). Changes in nasal polyps score (NPS) and Lund-Mackay (LMK) scores were assessed in patients with/without SNOT-22 items improvements of at least 1 severity group point at W24 and W52. RESULTS: The SNOT-22 items ranked most important at baseline were "decreased sense of smell/taste" (87% of patients), followed by "nasal blockage" (82%), "postnasal discharge" (40%), "thick nasal discharge" (37%), and "wake up at night" (26%); 82%, 61%, 32%, 40%, and 26% of patients reported severe symptoms (score 4 or 5) for these items, respectively. Dupilumab improved score severity for all top 5 items versus placebo at W24 and W52. Improvements in NPS and LMK scores were numerically greater in patients with improvements in the SNOT-22 top 5 items. CONCLUSION: Loss of smell/taste was ranked as the most important symptom by patients with CRSwNP. Dupilumab reduced the severity of the top 5 most important SNOT-22 items versus placebo, in parallel with improvements in objective disease measures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 clinical trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers NCT02912468 and NCT02898454, respectively.