Search

Background: The chronic rhinosinusitis patient-reported outcome (CRS-PRO) is a recently published disease-specific questionnaire designed for CRS patients, with fewer entries and ease of completion. This study aimed to translate the CRS-PRO questionnaire into Chinese and assess its reliability, validity, and responsiveness to provide Chinese patients with a more concise and efficient subjective assessment instrument. Methods: The Chinese version of the CRS-PRO was created through forwardbackward translations and cultural adaptation. Here, 168 CRS patients (118 patients CRS with nasal polyps [CRSwNP] and 50 patients with CRS without nasal polyps [CRSsNP]) and 43 healthy individuals were enrolled. All participants completed the CRS-PRO, 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), and EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) questionnaires preoperatively as well as 3 and 6 months after surgery. Results: The Chinese version of the CRS-PRO demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's a of 0.813. It also exhibited a higher criterion validity (r=0.65, p<0.05) than the SNOT-22.Amoderate associationwas found between the CRS-PRO and objective indicators such as the Lund-Mackay and endoscopic scores. Furthermore, the CRS-PRO, like the SNOT-22, could clearly distinguish CRS patients from healthy subjects (p < 0.01), as well as between the CRSwNP and CRSsNP subtypes (p < 0.01). Additionally, changes in the CRS-PRO exhibited a larger effect size compared to changes in the SNOT-22 (Cohen's d = 1.05 and 0.93 vs. 0.71 and 0.90 for 3 and 6 months, respectively, all p < 0.01). Conclusions: The Chinese version of the CRS-PRO is a concise, reliable, and responsive instrument that can be utilized as a novel subjective evaluation tool for future clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative effectiveness research between endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and biologic therapy for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a nascent field as new therapeutic modalities become clinically available. Methods: A prospective, multicenter cohort of CRSwNP patients, undergoing ESS between 2011 and 2019, were compared to phase‐3 biologic trial data. Patients undergoing ESS received baseline nasal endoscopy quantified via Lund‐Kennedy (LK) grading. Patients meeting inclusion criteria, modified from Dupilumab‐LIBERTY‐NP‐24&52, omalizumab‐POLYP‐1&2, and Mepolizumab‐SYNAPSE clinical trials, were included in this study. Baseline characteristics and outcome measures were compared between these cohorts at 24 weeks and 52 weeks, when possible. Results: A total of 111 CRSwNP patients met modified inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline age, sex, asthma status, aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease status, smell identification, LK‐polyp score, and Lund‐Mackay computed tomography (CT) scores between ESS and biologic groups. At 24 weeks, ESS demonstrated significantly greater improvements in 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) compared to one (of two) dupilumab trials (p < 0.05) and both omalizumab trials (p < 0.001). ESS associated with significantly lower nasal polyp scores (NPS) compared to dupilumab (p < 0.001) and omalizumab (p < 0.001), despite comparable improvements in smell identification (p > 0.05). At 52 weeks, ESS resulted in statistically similar improvement in SNOT‐22 scores compared to dupilumab (p = 0.21), but NPS remained significantly lower in the ESS group compared to dupilumab (p < 0.001) and mepolizumab (p < 0.001). Conclusion: At 24 weeks and 52 weeks, ESS offers comparable SNOT‐22 improvements compared to dupilumab. ESS and dupilumab offer comparable improvement in smell identification at 24 weeks. Compared to omalizumab, ESS offers superior SNOT‐22 improvements. ESS offers significantly greater reductions in polyp size compared to omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]