Is generative pre-trained transformer artificial intelligence (Chat-GPT) a reliable tool for guidelines synthesis? A preliminary evaluation for biologic CRSwNP therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) have emerged as an auspicious treatment alternative. However, the ideal patient population, dosage, and treatment duration are yet to be well-defined. Moreover, biologic therapy has disadvantages, such as high costs and limited access. The proposal of a novel Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm offers an intriguing solution for optimizing decision-making protocols. METHODS: The AI algorithm was initially programmed to conduct a systematic literature review searching for the current primary guidelines on biologics' clinical efficacy and safety in treating CRSwNP. The review included a total of 12 studies: 6 systematic reviews, 4 expert consensus guidelines, and 2 surveys. Simultaneously, two independent human researchers conducted a literature search to compare the results. Subsequently, the AI was tasked to critically analyze the identified papers, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, thereby creating a decision-making algorithm and pyramid flow chart. RESULTS: The studies evaluated various biologics, including monoclonal antibodies targeting Interleukin-5 (IL-5), IL-4, IL-13, and Immunoglobulin E (IgE), assessing their effectiveness in different patient populations, such as those with comorbid asthma or refractory CRSwNP. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-4 receptor alpha subunit, demonstrated significant improvement in nasal symptoms and quality of life in patients with CRSwNP in several randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. Similarly, mepolizumab and reslizumab, which target IL-5, have also shown efficacy in reducing nasal polyp burden and improving symptoms in patients with CRSwNP, particularly those with comorbid asthma. However, additional studies are required to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of these biologics in treating CRSwNP. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic therapies have surfaced as a promising treatment option for patients with severe or refractory CRSwNP; however, the optimal patient population, dosage, and treatment duration are yet to be defined. The application of AI in decision-making protocols and the creation of therapeutic algorithms for biologic drug selection, could offer fascinating future prospects in the management of CRSwNP.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps management in the biologic therapy era: an international YO-IFOS survey.

PURPOSE: To investigate the consistency between the international guidelines recommendations and worldwide standard practices regarding diagnostic work-up and follow-up strategies for managing patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) in the era of monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the Rhinology section of the Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (Yo-IFOS) included items regarding the management of CRSwNP patients, monoclonal prescription, surgical and follow-up procedures, awareness of biologicals availability, and other relevant clinical practices. The online survey was directed to otolaryngologists and distributed in Europe, North America, South America, and the Middle East through otolaryngological and/or rhinological societies. RESULTS: A total of 202 responses were analyzed; the mean participants' age was 45 ± 11 (73% men and 27% women), and 31% were from the United States, Canada 19%, Europe 45%, Middle East and South America 5%. Only 60% of the respondents declared using validated symptoms and endoscopic score systems in their clinical practice. Several practice discrepancies emerged in our cohort, including preferred surgical approach, prescription of preoperative oral steroids, and perioperative antibiotics (59% and 58%, respectively), as well as divergent awareness levels of available biologics for CRSwNP worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: CRSwNP needs a complex and time-consuming assessment, according to the latest guidelines. There seems to be a gap between these recommendations and the real-world data, which should draw more attention to bringing them into uniform clinical practice in the near future.