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.