We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments.
A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is an inflammatory condition of the nasal and paranasal tissues, characterized by the presence of bilateral nasal polyps. While etiology and pathogenetic mechanisms are heterogeneous and complex, in most patients, disease is mediated predominantly through type 2 inflammatory processes. Clinical management is challenging, and a multidisciplinary approach is preferred. Principal treatment approaches are the use of local/systemic corticosteroids and sinonasal surgery, although outcomes can be unsatisfactory. Recent availability of biological therapies targeting underlying inflammatory processes can offer effective treatment options in uncontrolled disease. Specialist guidelines greatly assist clinical decision-making, although as these are chiefly written from a global/international perspective, they may not wholly accommodate disease patterns and clinical practice at a regional level. An expert panel of specialists from Latin America was convened to develop regional guidance on the management of CRSwNP through a consensus approach. The present article presents the chief observations and recommendations which can provide guidance for clinicians in the Latin American region.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a chronic and often debilitating inflammatory condition of the nasal and paranasal tissues. An expert panel of specialists from the Gulf region (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates) and from Egypt gathered to evaluate existing guidance and develop regional guidance on the management of CRSwNP through a consensus approach. The present article presents the main observations and recommendations from this panel. CRSwNP diagnosis requires the presence of bilateral, endoscopically visualized polyps in the middle meatus (via nasal endoscopy or CT). In most patients, CRSwNP is mediated through predominantly type 2 inflammatory processes and is often observed in patients with asthma and other allergic disease. While many patients respond to medical treatment (principally topical irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids, and adjunctive short-term use of systemic corticosteroids), clinical management of CRSwNP is challenging, and a multidisciplinary approach for complete evaluation and treatment is recommended. Patients with more severe/uncontrolled disease (despite adequate medical therapies) require a complete endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), although outcomes can be unsatisfactory, and further revision surgery is common. Biological therapies targeting underlying inflammatory processes offer additional, effective treatment options for those patients with persistent symptoms despite complete ESS, and also in those patients where surgery may be contraindicated.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective.
METHODS: A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61.
RESULTS: After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease.
CONCLUSIONS: This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

BACKGROUND: Scientific evidence on patients with multimorbid type 2 asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) from a united airways disease (UAD) perspective remains scarce, despite the frequent coexistence of these entities. We aimed to generate expert consensus-based recommendations for the management of UAD patients.
METHODS: Using a two-round Delphi method, Spanish expert allergists, pulmonologists and otolaryngologists expressed their agreement on 32 statements (52 items) on a 9-point Likert scale, classified as appropriate (median 7-9), uncertain (4-6) or inappropriate (1-3). Consensus was considered when at least two-thirds of the panel scored within the range containing the median.
RESULTS: A panel of 30 experts reached consensus on the appropriateness of 43 out of the 52 (82.7%) items. The usefulness of certain biomarkers (tissue and peripheral blood eosinophil count, serum total IgE, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) in the identification and follow-up of type 2 inflammation, and assessment of the response to biologics, were agreed. Some of these biomarkers were also associated with disease severity and/or recurrence after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Consensus was achieved on treatment strategies related to the prescription of anti-IL-4/IL-13 or anti-IgE agents, concomitant treatment with systemic corticosteroids, and combining or switching to biologics with a different mechanism of action, considering a number of UAD clinical scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: We provide expert-based recommendations to assist in clinical decision-making for the management of patients with multimorbid type 2 asthma and CRSwNP. Specific clinical trials and real-world studies focusing on the single-entity UAD are required to address controversial items.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent and burdensome disease for both individuals and health systems. Its management involves many specialties, including otorhinolaryngology, allergology, pulmonology, primary care, pharmacy, and pediatrics. A multidisciplinary approach and the participation of the patient in decision-making are essential, both for diagnosis and for therapy. The authors of the consensus aim to translate current knowledge into an easy-to-read practical guide and emphasize those aspects requiring further discussion or with unmet needs owing to the lack of appropriate scientific evidence. An iterative approach for the development of an evidence-based systematic review with recommendations was followed using a standard quality assessment approach (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN] and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]). The guideline was critically evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) and Recommendation Excellence (AGREE REX) instruments. Consequently, POLINA has been considered a high-quality guideline by an independent agency. The POLINA consensus provides new definitions of control, therapeutic management (including surgery and evaluation of severity), indications for use of biologics, and response. Finally, this guideline focuses on unmet research needs in CRSwNP.

OBJECTIVE: To compare international and regional guidelines for prescription and monitoring of response to biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP).
METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify publications reporting indications for biologic therapy in CRSwNP. A full-text reading identified specific issues for comparison: prior surgery, evidence of type 2 inflammation (T2I), smell function, comorbidities, use of systemic corticosteroids, impact on quality of life, and endoscopic and CT findings were compared for the prescription, while the monitoring of the treatment was described in relation to timing, classification of response and criteria for withdrawal.
RESULTS: Ten publications were found. Prior surgery was strictly necessary in five guidelines, while in all the remaining it was variably recommended. A confirmation of T2I was considered necessary in one publication, unnecessary in two, and recommended or constituted only one of the factors to consider in seven. All the other issues analyzed were variably considered. Reevaluation was suggested at 4-6 months and 1 year, mostly assessing improvement in the same criteria used for prescription.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of subjective and objective findings is used for the identification of patients with CRSwNP who are indicated for biologic therapy. Major debate has developed on the need for previous surgery, which is generally recommended, or strictly necessary for some authors. Confirmation of T2I is generally suggested, but compulsory only in a minority of guidelines. Smell function, use of systemic corticosteroids, and the impact on quality of life are the other factors most frequently considered.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a sino-nasal chronic inflammatory disease, occurring in 5-15% of the general population. CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is present in up to 30% of the CRS population. One-third of CRSwNP patients suffer from disease that is uncontrolled by current standards of care. Biologics are an emerging treatment option for patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP, but their positioning in the treatment algorithm is under discussion. Effective endotyping of CRSwNP patients who could benefit from biologics treatment is required, as suggested by international guidelines. Other issues affecting management include comorbidities, such as allergy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease, and asthma. Therefore, the choice of treatment in CRSwNP patients depends on many factors. A multidisciplinary approach may improve CRSwNP management in patients with comorbidities, but currently there is no shared management model. We summarize the outcomes of a Delphi process involving a multidisciplinary panel of otolaryngologists, pulmonologists, and allergist-immunologists involved in the management of CRSwNP, who attempted to reach consensus on key statements relating to the diagnosis, endotyping, classification and management (including the place of biologics) of CRSwNP patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cough can be triggered by respiratory and non-respiratory tract illnesses originating mainly from the upper and lower airways, and the GI tract (ie, reflux). Recent findings suggest it can also be a prominent feature in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), laryngeal hyperresponsiveness, and COVID-19. The classification of chronic cough is constantly updated but lacks clear definition. Epidemiological data on the prevalence of chronic cough are informative but highly variable. The underlying mechanism of chronic cough is a neurogenic inflammation of the cough reflex which becomes hypersensitive, thus the term hypersensitive cough reflex (HCR). A current challenge is to decipher how various infectious and inflammatory airway diseases and esophageal reflux, among others, modulate HCR.
OBJECTIVE: The World Allergy Organization/Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (WAO/ARIA) Joint Committee on Chronic Cough reviewed the current literature on classification, epidemiology, presenting features, and mechanistic pathways of chronic cough in airway- and reflux-related cough phenotypes, OSA, and COVID-19. The interplay of cough reflex sensitivity with other pathogenic mechanisms inherent to airway and reflux-related inflammatory conditions was also analyzed.
RESULTS: Currently, it is difficult to clearly ascertain true prevalence rates in epidemiological studies of chronic cough phenotypes. This is likely due to lack of standardized objective measures needed for cough classification and frequent coexistence of multi-organ cough origins. Notwithstanding, we emphasize the important role of HCR as a mechanistic trigger in airway- and reflux-related cough phenotypes. Other concomitant mechanisms can also modulate HCR, including type2/Th1/Th2 inflammation, presence or absence of deep inspiration-bronchoprotective reflex (lower airways), tissue remodeling, and likely cough plasticity, among others.

Background: The fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) test is a point-of-care test that is used in the assessment of asthma. Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical guidance on whether FENO testing is indicated to optimize asthma treatment in patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened to form a consensus document regarding a single question relevant to the use of FENO. The question was selected from three potential questions based on the greatest perceived impact on clinical practice and the unmet need for evidence-based answers related to this question. The panel performed systematic reviews of published randomized controlled trials between 2004 and 2019 and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations. All panel members evaluated and approved the recommendations. Main Results: After considering the overall low quality of the evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation for FENO-based care. In patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered, we suggest that FENO is beneficial and should be used in addition to usual care. This judgment is based on a balance of effects that probably favors the intervention; the moderate costs and availability of resources, which probably favors the intervention; and the perceived acceptability and feasibility of the intervention in daily practice. Conclusions: Clinicians should consider this recommendation to measure FENO in patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered based on current best available evidence.