Steroid responsiveness predicts olfactory function recovery in dupilumab treated CRSwNP.

BACKGROUND: There is no known predictor for olfactory function recovery with dupilumab treatment in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). This study assessed whether patient-reported recovery of olfactory function on oral corticosteroids (OCS) is a prognostic factor. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of pre-biological OCS-responsiveness on olfactory functioning (OCS-responsive or OCS-unresponsive; OCS-r and OCR-u, respectively) as predictor for olfactory functioning after 6 months of dupilumab therapy for severe CRSwNP. RESULTS: 212 CRSwNP patients treated with dupilumab were divided between OCS-r (reported improvement of olfactory function with OCS before dupilumab treatment, n = 152), and OCS-u (OCS-unresponsive; no such improvement, n = 60). Olfactory function was tested with Sniffin' Sticks Identification Test (12 pens; SSIT-12). At baseline, both groups had a median SSIT-12 score of 3 / 12 indicating anosmia. Hyposmia and normosmia rates were also comparable (5.9% and 3.3% in OCS-r, respectively; 5.0% and 1.7% in OCS-u, respectively). After 6 months of dupilumab treatment, OCS-r showed higher olfactory scores (median SSIT-12: 8/12; 52.6% hyposmia and 17.8% normosmia) than OCS-u (median SSIT-12: 5/12; 31.7% hyposmia and 3.3% normosmia). The positive predictive value of OCS-responsiveness on scoring ≥7 (normosmia/hyposmia) on the SSIT-12 after 6 months of dupilumab treatment was 70.4%. Conversely, the negative predictive value of OCS-unresponsiveness on scoring.

Eosinophils are the dominant type2 marker for the current indication of biological treatment in severe uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

The latest European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) defines markers for type2 inflammation in the context of indicating biological therapy in severe uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) as either a total serum immunoglobulin E (total-IgE) <100 kU/L, a blood eosinophil count (BEC, expressed as -109 cells / L) >=0.25, or a tissue eosinophil count >=10 per high power field (HPF) (1). Recently, an EPOS/EUFOREA expert panel advised to lower the threshold for BEC from >=0.25 (EPOS2020) to >=0.15 (EUFOREA2023) to align with thresholds used for biological indication in asthma patients (2). As far as we know, there is no literature supporting the cut-off value for total-IgE.

Hypereosinophilia during dupilumab treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

BACKGROUND: Increased blood eosinophil count (BEC) is common in patients under dupilumab treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). This study investigated the prevalence and consequences of hypereosinophilia and to help define patients at risk. METHODS: Real-life, prospective observational cohort study of patients treated with dupilumab for severe CRSwNP. Eligible patients were adult and biological-naive (N=334). All BEC values at baseline and during treatment were reported. Patients with a follow-up of >= 1 year were included to define patients at risk for hypereosinophilia by comparing baseline BEC values (N=218). Furthermore, clinical characteristics and therapeutic consequences for patients with BEC >= 3.0 were noted. RESULTS: Hypereosinophilia developed in a minority of patients, with a peak at week 12 (16.2% with BEC >= 1.5, and 1.7% >= 3.0) in cross-sectional analysis. BEC >= 1.5 developed in 28.9% and BEC >=3.0 in 4.6% of cases with a minimal 1-year follow-up. Baseline BEC was significantly higher for patients developing BEC >= 1.5 and BEC >=3.0, with an optimal cut-off point of 0.96 to predict developing BEC >= 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: Blood eosinophil count (BEC) >= 1.5 is transient and usually abates with no therapeutic interventions and BEC >= 3.0 is rare. Hypereosinophilic syndrome did not occur and switching to a different biological was rarely employed. A baseline BEC of >=1.0 can be a reason for extra caution.

Adherence to a low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diet differs by insulin resistance status.

Previous research shows diminished weight loss success in insulin-resistant (IR) women assigned to a low-fat (LF) diet compared to those assigned to a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet. These secondary analyses examined the relationship between insulin-resistance status and dietary adherence to either a LF-diet or LC-diet among 81 free-living, overweight/obese women [age = 41.9 ± 5.7 years; body mass index (BMI) = 32.6 ± 3.6 kg/m(2)]. This study found differential adherence by insulin-resistance status only to a LF-diet, not a LC-diet. IR participants were less likely to adhere and lose weight on a LF-diet compared to insulin-sensitive (IS) participants assigned to the same diet. There were no significant differences between IR and IS participants assigned to LC-diet in relative adherence or weight loss. These results suggest that insulin resistance status may affect dietary adherence to weight loss diets, resulting in higher recidivism and diminished weight loss success of IR participants advised to follow LF-diets for weight loss.