Doxycycline may be more clinically effective in type 2 chronic rhinosinusitis nasal polyp comorbid with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp (CRSwNP) is one of the major phenotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with a high symptom burden. Doxycycline can be used as add-on therapy in CRSwNP. We aimed to evaluate short-term efficacy of oral doxycycline on visual analog scale (VAS) and SNOT-22 (Sino-nasal outcome test) score for CRSwNP. METHODS: Visual analog score (VAS) for nasal symptoms and total SNOT-22 scores of 28 patients who applied with the diagnosis of CRSwNP and received 100 mg doxycycline for 21 days were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. Doxycycline efficacy was also evaluated in subgroups determined according to asthma, presence of atopy, total IgE and eosinophil levels. RESULTS: After 21-day doxycycline treatment, there was a significant improvement in VAS score for post-nasal drip, nasal discharge, nasal congestion, and sneeze, and total SNOT-22 score (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in VAS score for the loss of smell (p = 0.18). In the asthmatic subgroup, there were significant improvements in all VAS scores and total SNOT-22 score after doxycycline. In the non-asthmatic subgroup, there was no significant change in any of the VAS scores, but total SNOT-22 score was significantly improved (42 [21-78] vs. 18 [9-33]; p = 0.043). Improvement in VAS score for loss of smell is significant in only some subgroups like asthmatic patients, non-atopic patients, and patients with eosinophil >300 cell/µL. CONCLUSIONS: Doxycycline can be considered as an add-on treatment for symptom control in patients especially with CRSwNP comorbid with asthma.

The Effectiveness of Biological Agents on Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis in Patients with Comorbid Asthma: A Multicenter Real-Life Study from Türkiye.

Background and Objectives: Real-life data on the efficacy of biologic agents (BAs) on asthma-comorbid CRSwNP are needed. Our primary goal is to investigate the effects of BAs on CRSwNP symptoms, as well as endoscopic and tomography scores. Our secondary goal is to show a reduction in the frequency of acute sinusitis exacerbations and the need for surgery. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, real-life study. We screened the patients with asthma-comorbid CRSwNP treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. A total of 69 patients (40 F/29 M; omalizumab n = 55, mepolizumab n = 14) were enrolled. We compared the visual analog scale (VAS), sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22), nasal congestion score (NCS), Lund-Mackay computed tomography score (LMS), and total endoscopic polyp scores (TPS) before and after BAs. We evaluated the endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) frequencies separately, according to the BAs. Results: The overall median (min-max) age was 43 (21-69) years. The median (min-max) of biologic therapy duration was 35 (4-113) months for omalizumab and 13.5 (6-32) for mepolizumab. Significant improvements were seen in VAS, SNOT-22, and NCS with omalizumab and mepolizumab. A significant decrease was observed in TPS with omalizumab [95% CI: 0-4] (p < 0.001), but not with mepolizumab [95% CI: -0.5-2] (p = 0.335). The frequency of ESS and AECRS were significantly reduced with omalizumab [95% CI: 2-3] (p < 0.001) and [95% CI: 2-5] (p < 0.001); and mepolizumab [95% CI: 0-2] (p = 0.002) and [95% CI: 2-8.5] (p < 0.001), respectively. There was no significant difference in LMS with either of the BAs. Conclusions: Omalizumab and mepolizumab can provide a significant improvement in the sinonasal symptom scores. BAs are promising agents for CRSwNP patients with frequent exacerbations and multiple surgeries.

Discontinuing Omalizumab Treatment in Super-Responder Patients with Allergic Severe Asthma: Can the Baseline Total IgE Level Be Used as a Biological Marker to Decide Discontinuing Omalizumab Treatment?

BACKGROUND: Although there are many studies presenting the efficacy of omalizumab in severe asthma, the data about the optimal treatment duration are still debated. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical effects of omalizumab discontinuation after 5 years of treatment in patients with omalizumab super-responders, the persistence of response and to compare the features of patients, whose symptoms are still well controlled and those who relapsed and re-treated with omalizumab. METHODS: Clinical and laboratory data of 100 adult patients diagnosed with allergic severe asthma and treated with omalizumab between 2008 and 2020 were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic, clinical, functional, and laboratory parameters of the patients who were re-treated with omalizumab and those who did not need to be re-treated were compared. RESULTS: There were 14 super-responder patients, who were treated with omalizumab for 5 years, and the treatment was discontinued then. Omalizumab was not restarted in 9 patients (64%) and was restarted in 5 (36%) patients. No significant difference was presented between these two groups in terms of demographic, clinical, functional, and laboratory parameters. The baseline total IgE levels of patients, who were re-treated with omalizumab, was found to be higher than those who were not, but this difference was not statistically significant (440 [229-864] IU/mL vs. 164 [85-293] IU/mL; p = 0.053, respectively). CONCLUSION: One of 3 patients was re-treated with omalizumab due to loss of asthma control after discontinuation of the treatment. Therefore, omalizumab's immunomodulatory effect may seem to persist in a majority of cases after discontinuation. Also, higher baseline total IgE levels might help to predict the cases that need re-treatment after discontinuation.

The adequacy of current diagnostic criteria for making a diagnosis of ABPA.

Introduction: Currently, there are four different diagnostic criteria systems for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA): The Rosenberg-Patterson, Seropositive ABPA (ABPA-S), Central Bronchiectasis and ABPA (ABPA-CB), and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology (ISHAM) ABPA study group criteria. This study aims to retrospectively compare these four diagnostic criteria in ABPA patients. Materials and Methods: Patients who were followed up with the diagnosis of ABPA were retrospectively re-evaluated using these four diagnostic criteria, and the superiority of these criteria to each other was determined. Result: A total of 10 ABPA patients were included in the study. Seven patients were diagnosed according to ISHAM ABPA study group diagnostic criteria and six patients according to the Rosenberg-Patterson diagnostic criteria. None of the patients fulfilled the criteria when evaluated individually with ABPA-S and ABPA-CB. Of patients diagnosed by ISHAM, five had a total IgE level above 1000 IU/mL and two had below 1000 IU/mL. Conclusions: We demonstrated that the diagnostic criteria developed by the ISHAM ABPA study group were superior to the others in diagnosing ABPA in cases with a total IgE level above 1000 IU/mL. However, all these criteria seem to be sufficient to diagnose ABPA in patients with a total IgE below 1000 IU/mL. We believe the necessity to demonstrate presence of Aspergillus fumigatus precipitating antibodies or specific IgG positivity should be questioned particularly in patients with radiologic findings compatible with ABPA and a total IgE level below 1000 IU/mL.

[Long-term macrolide therapy in asthma]. / Astimda uzun süreli makrolid tedavisi.

Macrolides are antibiotics with antiviral, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects in together with their bacteriostatic effects. In addition to its beneficial effects on chronic respiratory diseases such as COPD, cystic fibrosis, diffuse panbronchiolitis, and bronchiectasis, its effects on uncontrolled severe asthma and asthma exacerbations have been the subject of research in recent years. In randomized controlled trials, azithromycin, a macrolide, has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and significantly improve asthma-related quality of life in both eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma phenotypes. However, there are also differences such as doses, durations and some studies not showing its effectiveness in severe eosinophilic asthma. In the GINA report, azithromycin can be recommended as an add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled non-T2 severe asthma despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroid/ long-acting beta2-agonist/long-acting antimuscariniric treatments, or in T2 severe asthma patients whose asthma is not under control despite biologic therapy. In this review, the use of macrolides, especially azithromycin, in the treatment of asthma, immunomodulatory activities and safety profiles are discussed on the basis of current studies and guidelines.

Blood hyperreosinophilia: A diagnostic challenge.

A very detailed differential diagnosis is necessary to investigate the causes of blood hypereosinophilia. In the differential diagnosis of hypereosinophilia with pulmonary involvement, primary and secondary eosinophilic lung diseases should be kept in mind, and more specific diagnoses should be considered in those with a history of nasal polyposis and asthma. Here, it was aimed to present a case of organ-limited hypereosinophilia with asthma and nasal polyposis.

Effectiveness of mepolizumab therapy on symptoms, asthma exacerbations, steroid dependence, and small airways in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma

Background/aim: The efficacy of mepolizumab has been largely demonstrated in clinical trials in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). However, reports on experience with mepolizumab in a real-life cohort are limited. Moreover, data about the effectiveness of mepolizumab on small airways is scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of mepolizumab therapy on symptoms, asthma exacerbations, blood eosinophils, steroid dependence, and small airways in a real-life cohort of patients with SEA. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with SEA who were receiving fixed-dose mepolizumab. The effects of mepolizumab on clinical, laboratory, functional parameters were evaluated at 12th, 24th, and 52nd weeks. Small airways were assessed with the FEF 25-75. Results: A total of 41 patients were enrolled in the study. Mepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates, reduced mOCS dose, and improved asthma control test (ACT) scores at 12th, 24th, and 52nd weeks. However, we found no significant changes in FEV1 and FEF25-75 values at baseline, 12th, 24th, and 52nd weeks (78.9 ± 23.3%, 82.9 ± 23.4%, 81.9 ± 23.9%, and 78.9 ± 23.5% for FEV1; 45.1 ± 23.1%, 48.8 ± 23.5%, 48.7 ± 23.1%, and 41.0 ± 20.1% for FEF25-75, respectively) Conclusion: In this study, mepolizumab significantly improved all outcomes (symptom scores, asthma exacerbations, OCS sparing, and blood eosinophils) except functional parameters. Still, despite the dose reduction in mOCS dosage, no significant deterioration was observed in FEV1 and FEF25-75 values.

Biological therapy management from the initial selection of biologics to switching between biologics in severe asthma.

The aim of this review is to elaborate the management of biologic therapy from initial selection to switching biologics in severe asthma. A nonsystematic review was performed for biological therapy management in severe asthma. Depending on clinical characteristics and biomarkers, selecting the preferred biologic based on super-responder criteria from previous studies may result in adequate clinical efficacy in most patients. On the other hand, no matter how carefully the choice is made, in some patients, it may be necessary to discontinue the drug due to suboptimal clinical response or even no response. This may result in the need to switch to a different biological therapy. How long the biological treatment of patients whose asthma is controlled with biologics will be continued and according to which criteria they will be terminated remains unclear. It has been shown that in patients with a long history of good response to biologics, asthma control may be impaired when biologics are discontinued, while it may persist in others. Therefore, discontinuation of biologics may be a viable strategy in a particular patient group. Clinicians should make the best use of all predictive factors to identify patients who will most benefit from each biologic. Patients who do not meet a predefined response criterion after sufficient time for response evaluation and who are eligible for one or more alternative biological agents should be offered the opportunity to switch to another biologic. There is no consensus on when the biologics used in severe asthma that produce favorable results should be discontinued. In our opinion, treatment should continue for at least five years, as premature termination may potentially deteriorate asthma control.

[Biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: Current status report 2023]. / Agir astim tedavisinde biyolojikler: Güncel durum raporu 2023.

Severe asthma is associated with increased use of healthcare services, significant deterioration in the quality of life, and high disease and economic burden on patients and societies. Additional treatments are required for severe forms of asthma. Biological agents are recommended for the treatment of severe asthma. In this current status report, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety data of approved biologics; omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, in the treatment of severe asthma and appropriate patient profiles for these biologics. Pubmed and Cochrane databases based on randomized controlled trials, posthoc analyses, meta-analyses, and real-life studies examining the efficacy and effectiveness of biologics in severe asthma were searched, and the results of these studies on important asthma outcomes were reviewed. Existing studies have shown that all the approved biologic agents targeting cells, receptors, and mediators involved in type 2 inflammation in the bronchial wall in severe asthma significantly reduce asthma exacerbations, reduce the need for oral corticosteroids, and improve asthma control, quality of life, and pulmonary functions. Characterizing the asthma endotype and phenotype in patients with severe asthma and determining which treatment would be more appropriate for a particular patient is an essential step in personalized treatment.