Blanca Barroso

and 25 more

Background. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), characterized by partial (hyposmia) or total (anosmia) loss of smell, is commonly associated with asthma and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD), worsens disease severity and quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine whether, in real-life conditions, biological treatments prescribed for severe asthma can improve olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. A further objective was to compare smell improvement in N-ERD and non-N-ERD subgroups. Methods. A multicenter, non-interventional, retrospective, observational study was performed, including 206 patients with severe asthma undergoing biological treatment (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab) with CRSwNP. Results. Improved olfaction was found after treatment with all monoclonal antibodies: omalizumab (35.8%), mepolizumab (35.4%), reslizumab (35.7%), and benralizumab (39.1%), with no differences between groups. Patients with atopy, greater use of short course systemic corticosteroids, and larger polyp size were more likely to experience improvement in smell. The proportion of patients experiencing smell improvement was similar between the N-ERD (37%) and non-N-ERD (35.7%) groups. Conclusions. This is the first study to compare real-life improvement in sense of smell among patients undergoing long-term treatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab for severe asthma and associated CRSwNP. Approximately 4 out of 10 patients reported a subjective improvement in sense of smell (with non-significant differences between biologic drugs). No differences were found in smell improvement between the N-ERD and non-N-ERD group.

Luis Perez de Llano

and 9 more

Background: There is a lack of tools to holistically quantify the response to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in severe uncontrolled asthma (SUA) patients. The aim of this study was to develop a valid score to assist specialists in this clinical context. Methods: The score was developed in 4 subsequent phases: (1) elaboration of the theoretical model of the construct intended to be measured (response to mAbs); (2) definition and selection of items and measurement instruments by Delphi survey; (3) weight assignment of the selected items by multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA) methodology via the 1000Minds software; and (4) face validity assessment of the obtained score. Results: Four core items, with different levels of response for each of them, were selected: “severe exacerbations”, “oral corticosteroid use”, “symptoms” (evaluated by Asthma Control Test: ACT) and “bronchial obstruction” (assessed by FEV1 % theoretical). “Severe exacerbations” and “oral corticosteroid maintenance dose” were weighted most heavily (38% each), followed by “symptoms” (13%) and “FEV1” (11%). Higher scores in the weighted system indicate better response and the range of responses runs from 0 (worsening) to 100 (best possible response). Face validity was high (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.86). Conclusions: The FEOS score (FEV1, Exacerbations, Oral corticosteroids, Symptoms) allows clinicians to quantify response in SUA patients who are being treated with mAbs.