The Unified Airway Hypothesis: Evidence From Specific Intervention With Anti-IL-5 Biologic Therapy.

The unified airway hypothesis proposes that upper and lower airway diseases reflect a single pathological process manifesting in different locations within the airway. Functional, epidemiological, and pathological evidence has supported this well-established hypothesis for some time. However, literature on the pathobiologic roles/therapeutic targeting of eosinophils and IL-5 in upper and lower airway diseases (including asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps [CRSwNP], and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease) has recently emerged. This narrative review revisits the unified airway hypothesis by searching the scientific literature for recent learnings and clinical trial/real-world data that provide a novel perspective on its relevance for clinicians. According to the available literature, eosinophils and IL-5 have important pathophysiological roles in both the upper and lower airways, although the impact of eosinophils and IL-5 may vary in asthma and CRSwNP. Some differential effects of anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5-receptor therapies in CRSwNP have been observed, requiring further investigation. However, pharmaceutical targeting of eosinophils and IL-5 in patients with upper, lower, and comorbid upper and lower airway inflammation has led to clinical benefit, supporting the hypothesis that these are linked conditions manifesting in different locations. Consideration of this approach may improve patient care and aid clinical decision making.

A Comparison of International Guidelines for Rhinosinusitis.

The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS), latest version EPOS2020, and the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS), latest version ICAR-RS-2021, assimilate thousands of articles on the topic of rhinosinusitis. Encompassing scores of subtopics and relying on the perspectives of many international experts, EPOS2020 and ICAR-RS-2021 reduce the existing data into consumable formats and create evidence-based recommendations. The approaches and findings are similar in many respects but have significant differences. This clinical commentary, authored by some of the principal authors of these documents, compares and contrasts EPOS2020 and ICAR-RS-2021, examining methodology, diagnostic and treatment recommendations, and each document's emphases. This commentary demonstrates that, through somewhat differing methodologies, the 2 documents arrive at largely similar conclusions. Those who care for patients suffering from rhinosinusitis will find the documents complementary and valuable in their differences as much as in their similarities.

Double-blinded randomized prospective trial of intranasal capsaicin treatment for nonallergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is currently a diagnosis of exclusion with an unclear pathophysiologic mechanism and limited treatment options. In patients diagnosed with NAR based on symptoms, negative skin testing and positive optical rhinometry (ORM), the study's objective was to evaluate the therapeutic action of intranasal capsaicin in the management of rhinitic symptoms and the effect on ORM readings. METHODS: Patients with a history of NAR underwent screening by a diagnostic intranasal capsaicin challenge with ORM and skin-prick testing. Twenty-two NAR patients were enrolled and randomized to either treatment with 0.1mM capsaicin (n = 11) or placebo (n = 11). Treatment consisted of 5 consecutive intranasal applications separated by 1 hour with follow-up at 4 and 12 weeks. At each visit, subjects underwent intranasal capsaicin challenge with ORM reading and a visual analog scale scoring of rhinitis symptoms. RESULTS: Treatment with intranasal capsaicin resulted in a median change with improvement in total symptom score (TSS) of -5 from baseline vs an increase of 2 with placebo at 4 weeks, which remained significantly different between the groups at 12 weeks (p = 0.03). At 12 weeks posttreatment, 60% of the intervention group vs 80% of placebo-treated patients still met objective criteria for NAR by ORM. CONCLUSION: Using ORM in the objective diagnosis of NAR, this trial showed that intranasal 0.1mM capsaicin not only improved rhinitic symptoms but also objectively reduced nasal reactivity and nasal congestion with a 40% responder rate at 12 weeks as noted by ORM.

Office-Based Sinus Surgery.

Office-based rhinologic procedures have seen a dramatic rise in incidence over the last decade. It is crucial to select appropriate patients and understand which pathologies may be amenable to in-office procedures. It behooves the otolaryngologist to be familiar with the array of technologic advances that are expanding the limits of office-based rhinology and to have a solid understanding of the technical nuances of using these technologies in the clinic. This article highlights the issues associated with some of the more common office-based sinus procedures, and provides practical information on set-up and reimbursement.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.