Efficacy and safety of benralizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis, severity, and treatment responsiveness of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab-mediated eosinophil depletion for treating CRSwNP. METHODS: The phase 3 OSTRO study enrolled patients with severe CRSwNP who were symptomatic despite treatment with intranasal corticosteroids and who had a history of systemic corticosteroid (SCS) use and/or surgery for nasal polyps (NP). Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with benralizumab 30 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the first 3 doses and every 8 weeks thereafter. Coprimary end points were change from baseline to week 40 in NP score (NPS) and patient-reported mean nasal blockage score reported once every 2 weeks. RESULTS: The study population comprised 413 randomized patients (207 in the benralizumab group and 206 in the placebo group). Benralizumab significantly improved NPS and nasal blockage score compared to placebo at week 40 (P ≤ .005). Improvements in Sinonasal Outcome Test 22 score at week 40, time to first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP, and time to first NP surgery were not statistically significant between treatment groups. Nominal significance was obtained for improvement in difficulty in sense of smell score at week 40 (P = .003). Subgroup analyses suggested influences of comorbid asthma, number of NP surgeries, sex, body mass index, and baseline blood eosinophil count on treatment effects. Benralizumab was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab, when added to standard-of-care therapy, reduced NPS, decreased nasal blockage, and reduced difficulty with sense of smell compared to placebo in patients with CRSwNP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03401229.

Performance and Pain Tolerability of Current Diagnostic Allergy Skin Prick Test Devices.

BACKGROUND: Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. METHODS: Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P < .001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P < .001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0% to 45% with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100% for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices. CONCLUSIONS: All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.