International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology-based topics spanning the field. METHODS: In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence-Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus-building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. RESULTS: The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology-based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. CONCLUSION: As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.

Impairment of EQ-5D-5L Domains According to Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Control: A MASK-air Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: EQ-5D-5L (EuroQOL, 5 Domains, 5 Levels) is a widely used health-related quality-of-life instrument, comprising 5 domains. However, it is not known how each domain is impacted by rhinitis or asthma control. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between rhinitis or asthma control and the different EQ-5D-5L domains using data from the MASK-air mHealth app. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed data from all MASK-air users (2015-2021; 24 countries). For the levels of each EQ-5D-5L domain, we assessed rhinitis and asthma visual analog scales (VASs) and the combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We built ordinal multivariable models assessing the adjusted association between VAS/CSMS values and the levels of each EQ-5D-5L domain. Finally, we compared EQ-5D-5L data from users with rhinitis and self-reported asthma with data from users with rhinitis alone. RESULTS: We assessed 5354 days from 3092 users. We observed an association between worse control of rhinitis or asthma (higher VASs and CSMS) and worse EQ-5D-5L levels. In multivariable models, all VASs and the CSMS were associated with higher levels of pain/discomfort and daily activities. For anxiety/depression, the association was mostly observed for rhinitis-related tools (VAS nose, VAS global, and CSMS), although the presence of self-reported asthma was also associated with worse anxiety/depression. Worse mobility ("walking around") was particularly associated with VAS asthma and with the presence of asthma. CONCLUSIONS: A worse rhinitis control and a worse asthma control are associated with higher EQ-5D-5L levels, particularly regarding pain/discomfort and activity impairment. Worse rhinitis control is associated with worse anxiety/depression, and poor asthma control with worse mobility.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023.

BACKGROUND: In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document. METHODS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. RESULTS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. CONCLUSION: The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper on endoscopic scoring of nasal polyposis.

Nasal endoscopy is not only used for the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), but also for monitoring the response to therapy playing an important role in both daily practice and research. In contrast to patient-reported outcomes, endoscopic nasal polyp scoring by independent blinded readers is an objective measurement, not influenced by the placebo effect. It is safer and cheaper compared with computed tomography imaging and therefore, better suited for regular assessments of the extent of the disease. Since the early 90s, a variety of endoscopic staging methods have been proposed and used in clinical research, making it hard to compare results from different studies. This paper resulted from a task force with experts in the field of CRSwNP, originated by the Ear, Nose and Throat section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and aims to provide a unified endoscopic NP scoring system that can serve as a reference standard for researchers, but also as a useful tool for practitioners involved in the management of CRSwNP.

Digitally-enabled, patient-centred care in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity: The ARIA-MASK-air® approach.

MASK-air® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.

Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks: The MASK-air® longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. METHODS: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD = 39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms.

Chronic Rhinosinusitis Outcome Registry (CHRINOSOR): Establishment of an International Outcome Registry Driven by mHealth Technology.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) is a valuable instrument to better understand the patient journey and effectiveness of therapies. RWE on the prevalence of uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and CRS natural course of disease across Europe is scarce. In addition, there is limited RWE that enables comparison of the effectiveness of marketed therapies including topical or systemic corticosteroids, sinus surgery, or biologics. OBJECTIVE: To establish an international CHRonic rhINOSinusitis Outcome Registry (CHRINOSOR) based on real-world data collection enabled by mobile health technology. METHODOLOGY: A digital platform, Galenus Health, supporting patients and physicians in the management of chronic respiratory diseases, is used to collect data on patient profile, disease history, patient outcomes, and a set of relevant clinical outcomes. Adult patients with a diagnosis of CRS are eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: A collaborative scientific network of 17 university ear-nose-throat (ENT) clinics from 10 European countries has been established with the aim to collect real-world data in a longitudinal and standardized manner. The Galenus Health digital platform is currently being implemented in these ENT clinics taking into account legal, privacy, and data security aspects. Up to 300 patients have already been included. CONCLUSIONS: CHRINOSOR is a collaborative effort that aims at improving our understanding of CRS, its comorbidities, and the effectiveness of its treatments. Ultimately, these insights will guide us as scientific community to develop future care pathways informed by RWE.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): In-depth sinus surgery analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often require repeat sinus surgery. Mepolizumab reduced the need for sinus surgery in the SYNAPSE trial; this analysis sought to provide a more in-depth assessment of surgery endpoints in SYNAPSE. METHODS: SYNAPSE was a double-blind Phase III trial (NCT03085797) in adults with recurrent, refractory, severe, CRSwNP eligible for repeat sinus surgery despite standard of care treatments and previous surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Time to first inclusion on a waiting list for sinus surgery and time to first actual sinus surgery (both up to week 52) were assessed; the latter endpoint was also analyzed post hoc according to time since last sinus surgery before study screening and baseline blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Among 407 patients (mepolizumab: 206; placebo: 201), mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the risk of being included on a waiting list for sinus surgery (week 52 Kaplan-Meier probability estimate [95% confidence interval]: 13.9% [9.8%, 19.5%] vs. 28.5% [22.7%, 35.4%]). Mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the risk of sinus surgery irrespective of time (<3 vs ≥3 years) since patients' last sinus surgery prior to study screening (hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals] 0.28 [0.09, 0.84] and 0.50 [0.26, 0.98], respectively) and baseline blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced the risk of further sinus surgery in patients with recurrent, refractory, severe CRSwNP, irrespective of the patient baseline characteristics assessed.

Cutoff Values of MASK-air Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

BACKGROUND: In clinical and epidemiological studies, cutoffs of patient-reported outcome measures can be used to classify patients into groups of statistical and clinical relevance. However, visual analog scale (VAS) cutoffs in MASK-air have not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To calculate cutoffs for VAS global, nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study design of all MASK-air participants, we compared (1) approaches based on the percentiles (tertiles or quartiles) of VAS distributions and (2) data-driven approaches based on clusters of data from 2 comparators (VAS work and VAS sleep). We then performed sensitivity analyses for individual countries and for VAS levels corresponding to full allergy control. Finally, we tested the different approaches using MASK-air real-world cross-sectional and longitudinal data to assess the most relevant cutoffs. RESULTS: We assessed 395,223 days from 23,201 MASK-air users with self-reported allergic rhinitis. The percentile-oriented approach resulted in lower cutoff values than the data-driven approach. We obtained consistent results in the data-driven approach. Following the latter, the proposed cutoff differentiating "controlled" and "partly-controlled" patients was similar to the cutoff value that had been arbitrarily used (20/100). However, a lower cutoff was obtained to differentiate between "partly-controlled" and "uncontrolled" patients (35 vs the arbitrarily-used value of 50/100). CONCLUSIONS: Using a data-driven approach, we were able to define cutoff values for MASK-air VASs on allergy and asthma symptoms. This may allow for a better classification of patients with rhinitis and asthma according to different levels of control, supporting improved disease management.

Real-world data using mHealth apps in rhinitis, rhinosinusitis and their multimorbidities.

Digital health is an umbrella term which encompasses eHealth and benefits from areas such as advanced computer sciences. eHealth includes mHealth apps, which offer the potential to redesign aspects of healthcare delivery. The capacity of apps to collect large amounts of longitudinal, real-time, real-world data enables the progression of biomedical knowledge. Apps for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were searched for in the Google Play and Apple App stores, via an automatic market research tool recently developed using JavaScript. Over 1500 apps for allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were identified, some dealing with multimorbidity. However, only six apps for rhinitis (AirRater, AllergyMonitor, AllerSearch, Husteblume, MASK-air and Pollen App) and one for rhinosinusitis (Galenus Health) have so far published results in the scientific literature. These apps were reviewed for their validation, discovery of novel allergy phenotypes, optimisation of identifying the pollen season, novel approaches in diagnosis and management (pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy) as well as adherence to treatment. Published evidence demonstrates the potential of mobile health apps to advance in the characterisation, diagnosis and management of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis patients.

Updates in biologic therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) associated with type 2 inflammation and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) can be difficult to control with standard medical therapy and sinus surgery. In this group, biologicals are potentially promising treatment options. The phase III clinical trials for omalizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab in CRSwNP have demonstrated favourable outcomes. Moving forward, direct comparisons among biologicals, refining patient selection criteria for specific biologicals, determining optimal treatment duration and monitoring long-term outcomes are areas of emerging interest. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from the recent 2 years on the role of biologicals in severe CRSwNP and N-ERD, and proposes an approach towards decision-making in their use.

Academic Productivity of Young People With Allergic Rhinitis: A MASK-air Study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested an impact of allergic rhinitis on academic productivity. However, large studies with real-world data (RWD) are not available. OBJECTIVE: To use RWD to assess the impact of allergic rhinitis on academic performance (measured through a visual analog scale [VAS] education and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire plus Classroom Impairment Questions: Allergy Specific [WPAI+CIQ:AS] questionnaire), and to identify factors associated with the impact of allergic rhinitis on academic performance. METHODS: We assessed data from the MASK-air mHealth app of users aged 13 to 29 years with allergic rhinitis. We assessed the correlation between variables measuring the impact of allergies on academic performance (VAS education, WPAI+CIQ:AS impact of allergy symptoms on academic performance, and WPAI+CIQ:AS percentage of education hours lost due to allergies) and other variables. In addition, we identified factors associated with the impact of allergic symptoms on academic productivity through multivariable mixed models. RESULTS: A total of 13,454 days (from 1970 patients) were studied. VAS education was strongly correlated with the WPAI+CIQ:AS impact of allergy symptoms on academic productivity (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.58; 0.80]), VAS global allergy symptoms (0.70 [95% CI = 0.68; 0.71]), and VAS nose (0.66 [95% CI = 0.65; 0.68]). In multivariable regression models, immunotherapy showed a strong negative association with VAS education (regression coefficient = -2.32 [95% CI = -4.04; -0.59]). Poor rhinitis control, measured by the combined symptom-medication score, was associated with worse VAS education (regression coefficient = 0.88 [95% CI = 0.88; 0.92]), higher impact on academic productivity (regression coefficient = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.49; 0.90]), and higher percentage of missed education hours due to allergy (regression coefficient = 0.44 [95% CI = 0.25; 0.63]). CONCLUSION: Allergy symptoms and worse rhinitis control are associated with worse academic productivity, whereas immunotherapy is associated with higher productivity.

Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference.

BACKGROUND: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. RESULTS: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSION: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.

Allergen immunotherapy in MASK-air users in real-life: Results of a Bayesian mixed-effects model.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) on allergic rhinitis has been provided mostly by randomised controlled trials, with little data from real-life studies. OBJECTIVE: To compare the reported control of allergic rhinitis symptoms in three groups of users of the MASK-air® app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® data of European users with self-reported grass pollen allergy, comparing the data reported by patients receiving SLIT, SCIT and no AIT. Outcome variables included the daily impact of allergy symptoms globally and on work (measured by visual analogue scales-VASs), and a combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We applied Bayesian mixed-effects models, with clustering by patient, country and pollen season. RESULTS: We analysed a total of 42,756 days from 1,093 grass allergy patients, including 18,479 days of users under AIT. Compared to no AIT, SCIT was associated with similar VAS levels and CSMS. Compared to no AIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower values of VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 7.5 units out of 100; 95% credible interval [95%CrI] = -12.1;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 5.0; 95%CrI = -8.5;-1.5), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 3.7; 95%CrI = -9.3;2.2). When compared to SCIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 10.2; 95%CrI = -17.2;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 7.8; 95%CrI = -15.1;0.2), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 9.3; 95%CrI = -18.5;0.2). CONCLUSION: In patients with grass pollen allergy, SLIT-tablet, when compared to no AIT and to SCIT, is associated with lower reported symptom severity. Future longitudinal studies following internationally-harmonised standards for performing and reporting real-world data in AIT are needed to better understand its 'real-world' effectiveness.

Behavioural patterns in allergic rhinitis medication in Europe: A study using MASK-air® real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Co-medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis-related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co-medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real-world data. METHODS: We analysed 2015-2020 MASK-air® European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co-medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms ('VAS Global Symptoms') and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year. RESULTS: We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co-medication. The median 'VAS Global Symptoms' was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co-medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H1 -antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co-medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions. One third of treatment days involved co-medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co-medication use is driven by symptom severity.

The prevalence of non-allergic rhinitis phenotypes in the general population: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) can be subdivided into several phenotypes: rhinorrhea of the elderly, rhinitis medicamentosa, smokers', occupational, hormonal, drug-induced, gustatory, and idiopathic rhinitis. There are two pathophysiological endotypes of NAR: inflammatory and neurogenic. Phenotypes may serve as an indicator of an underlying endotype and, therefore, help to guide the treatment. The prevalence of each phenotype in the general population is currently unknown. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study in the general population of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic rhinitis in the general population was 40% (N = 558, of those, 65% had NAR and 28% AR, in 7% allergy status is unknown). Individuals with NAR (N = 363) had significantly more complaints in October-February. Those with AR (N = 159) had significantly more complaints in April-August. The most common NAR phenotypes were idiopathic (39%) and rhinitis medicamentosa (14%), followed by occupational (8%), smokers' (6%), hormonal (4%), gustatory (4%), and rhinorrhea of the elderly (4%). The least prevalent phenotype was drug induced (1%). Nineteen percent of the NAR group could not be classified into any of the phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the prevalences of NAR phenotypes in the general population. AR and NAR have a distinct seasonality pattern with NAR being more prevalent in autumn/winter and AR in spring/summer. Our data on the prevalence of phenotypes may help clinicians to anticipate the type of patients at their clinic and help guide a tailored treatment approach. The high prevalence of rhinitis medicamentosa is alarming, since this is a potentially preventable phenotype.

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.

Endoscopic sinus surgery with medical therapy versus medical therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is a common operation for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) when medical therapy alone is insufficient. No randomised controlled trials on the efficacy of ESS have been published. We aimed to assess the efficacy of ESS plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with CRSwNP. METHODS: We performed an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial in three tertiary care centres and 12 secondary care centres in 11 cities in the Netherlands (Almere, Amstelveen, Amsterdam, Blaricum, Den Haag, Deventer, Haarlem, Hoofddorp, Hoorn, Leiderdorp, and Rotterdam). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with CRSwNP and an indication for ESS were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (block sizes of six), stratified by study centre, to receive either ESS plus medical therapy or medical therapy. ESS was performed according to local practice, although anterior ethmoidectomy was mandatory. Medical therapy was prescribed at the patient's otorhinolaryngologist's discretion, and could be, but was not limited to, nasal corticosteroids, nasal rinsing, systemic corticosteroids, or systemic antibiotics. The primary outcome was disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 12 months of follow up, measured with the validated Sinonasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22; where each item is scored from 0 to 5, where 0 indicated no problems and 5 indicates problems as bad as can be, with a total score of 0-110 points), and the minimal clinically important difference of the SNOT-22 is 9·0 points. Primary and safety analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The ITT population comprised all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment according to their randomisation group and without any protocol violation. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR4978, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 15, 2015, and Aug 27, 2019, 371 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 238 were eligible, willing to participate, and randomly assigned to ESS plus medical therapy (n=121) or medical therapy (n=117) and 234 were included in the baseline ITT population (n=118 ESS plus medical therapy; n=116 medical therapy). 142 (61%) of 234 patients at baseline were men and 92 (39%) were women, and the mean age was 50·4 years (SD 12·7). 206 participants were analysed at 12 months for the primary outcome (n=103 in the ESS plus medical therapy group; n=103 in the medical therapy group). At 12 months follow-up, the mean SNOT-22 score in the ESS plus medical therapy group was 27·9 (SD 20·2; n=103) and in the medical therapy group was 31·1 (20·4; n=103), with an adjusted mean difference of -4·9 (95% CI -9·4 to -0·4), favouring ESS plus medical therapy. Adverse events were similar between the groups. The most common adverse events were minor epistaxis or gastrointestinal problems. No treatment-related deaths occurred, but one patient died due to congestive heart failure. INTERPRETATION: ESS plus medical therapy is more efficacious than medical therapy alone in patients with CRSwNP, although the minimal clinically important difference was not met. Long-term follow-up data are needed to determine whether the effect persists. The current results are a basis for further development of evidence-based guidelines. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).