[Does aspirin therapy after desensitization still have a role in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in the era of biologics?] / Hat die ASS-Desaktivierung in Zeiten von Biologika noch einen Stellenwert bei chronischer Rhinosinusitis mit nasaler Polyposis?

The prevalence of analgesic intolerance syndrome (AIS), internationally known as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), is reported to be 0.5-5.7% in the general population. The disease often begins with nasal symptoms, which are later joined by chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), asthma, and respiratory hypersensitivity reactions following use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the setting of chronic respiratory disease, the type 2 inflammatory endotype is predominant in approximately 80% of patients with CRSwNP, rendering biologics directed against interleukin (IL)-4, IL­5, IL-13, and IgE of high clinical interest, particularly in patients with severe CRSwNP and NERD. NERD is often associated with CRSwNP and asthma. Patients with CRSwNP and NERD have been treated, among other therapies, with aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD). With the approval of monoclonal antibodies for CRSwNP and asthma, the question arises as to what extent ATAD, which is associated with undesirable side effects, is still useful in the treatment of CRSwNP. In this manuscript, the use of ATAD in CRSwNP patients is discussed from different medical and socioeconomic points of view, both alternatively to or in combination with monoclonal antibodies. Accordingly, both ATAD and biologics continue to play a supporting role in modern treatment of CRSwNP in NERD patients, and should be used judiciously to complement each other.

EPOS2020/EUFOREA expert opinion on defining disease states and therapeutic goals in CRSwNP.

Severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), a form of diffuse bilateral (usually type 2) CRS, is a debilitating disease with a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). With novel knowledge and treatment options becoming available, there is a growing need to update or revise key definitions to enable communication across different specialties dealing with CRS, and to agree on novel goals of care in CRSwNP. The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway diseases (EUFOREA) and EPOS expert members discussed how to measure treatment responses and set new treatment goals for CRSwNP. In this paper a consensus on a list of definitions related to CRSwNP is provided: control, remission, cure, recurrence/exacerbation, treatable traits, remodeling, progression, and disease modification. By providing these definitions, the involved experts hope to improve communication between all stakeholders involved in CRSwNP treatment for use in routine care, basic and clinical research and international guidelines aimed to harmonize and optimize standard of care of patients with CRSwNP in the future.

Major Allergen Content in Allergen Immunotherapy Products: The Limited Value of Numbers

The prevalence of allergic disorders has increased drastically over the last 50 years to the extent that they can be considered epidemic.At present, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only therapy that targets the underlying cause of allergic disorders, and evidenceof its superiority is based on data accumulated from clinical trials and observational studies demonstrating efficacy and safety. However,several aspects remain unresolved, such as harmonization and standardization of manufacturing and quantification procedures acrossmanufacturers, homogeneous reporting of strength, and the establishment of international reference standards for many allergens. Thisarticle discusses issues related to the measurement of major allergen content in AIT extracts, raising the question of whether comparison ofproducts from different manufacturers is an appropriate basis for selecting a specific AIT product. Allergen standardization in immunotherapyproducts is critical for ensuring quality and, thereby, safety and efficacy. However, lack of harmonization in manufacturing processes,allergen quantification (methodologies and references), national regulatory differences, clinical practice, and labeling shows that thecomparison of AIT products based solely on major allergen amounts is not rational and, in fact, impossible. Moreover, when rating theinformation given for a specific product, it is necessary to take into account further inherent characteristics of products and their applicationin clinical practice, such as the state of extract modification, addition of adjuvant or adjuvant system, route of administration (sublingual/subcutaneous), and cumulative dose as per posology (including the volume per administration). Finally, only convincing clinical data canserve as the basis for product-specific evaluation and cross-product comparability of individual products. (AU)

La prevalencia de las enfermedades alérgicas se ha incrementado drásticamente en los últimos 50 años y hoy pueden considerarse unaepidemia. Actualmente, la inmunoterapia específica con alérgenos (ITA) es el único tratamiento dirigido a la causa subyacente de lasenfermedades alérgicas y su superioridad se basa en resultados de ensayos clínicos/estudios observacionales que demuestran su eficaciay seguridad. Pero quedan aspectos sin resolver, como la armonización y estandarización de los procesos de fabricación y cuantificaciónentre fabricantes, la declaración homogénea de la potencia y el establecimiento de estándares internacionales de referencia. En este artículo se discuten aspectos relacionados con la medida del contenido de alérgenos mayores en los extractos de ITA, cuestionandosi, como base para elegir entre productos, es apropiada la comparación entre diferentes fabricantes. La estandarización alergénica escrucial para asegurar la calidad y, por tanto, la seguridad y eficacia de la ITA. Sin embargo, la falta de armonización en los procesos defabricación, la cuantificación alergénica, las diferencias regulatorias, la práctica clínica y el etiquetado, demuestran que comparar productosbasándose únicamente en la cantidad de alérgeno mayor no está justificado y es imposible. Además, cuando se evalúa la informaciónpara un determinado producto, deben tenerse en cuenta las características propias de cada producto y su uso clínico, como el estado dela modificación del extracto, la adición de adyuvantes, la vía de administración y la dosis acumulada. Solo datos clínicos convincentesdeben servir para la evaluación específica de cada producto o como base para la comparación entre productos. (AU)

The work productivity and activity impairment allergic specific (WPAI-AS) questionnaire using mobile technology: the MASK study

No disponible

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2016 revision

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. METHODS: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.