Search

BackgroundCritical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).MethodsUsing previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.ResultsThe ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.ConclusionThis critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Background: In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation fromthe full document. Methods: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based reviewwith recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensuswas performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. Results: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. Conclusion: The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a heterogeneous disease with variable underlying pathophysiologies. Numerous patient factors have been linked to differences in disease severity, control, and response to treatment, including asthma status, aspirin sensitivity, previous sinonasal surgery, and blood eosinophil levels. Objective: The present study examines the efficacy of the anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, versus placebo in patients with CRSwNP from the replicate POLYP 1 (NCT03280550) and POLYP 2 (NCT03280537) trials, grouped by inherent patient characteristics to determine the response to therapy. Methods: Patients in prespecified subgroups from POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 (studies pooled for analysis) were examined. Subgroups included blood eosinophil count at baseline (>300 or ≤300 cells/μL), previous sinonasal surgery (yes or no), asthma status (yes or no), and aspirin sensitivity status (yes or no). Subgroups were examined for subgroup-specific adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) (omalizumab–placebo) in change from baseline at week 24 in Nasal Congestion Score (NCS), Nasal Polyp Score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Results: Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) (omalizumab–placebo) in NCS, NPS, SNOT-22, TNSS, and UPSIT change from baseline at week 24 consistently favored omalizumab treatment over placebo in patients with blood eosinophil count >300 and ≤300 cells/μL, with or without previous sinonasal surgery, asthma, and aspirin sensitivity. Conclusion: Together, these data suggest broad efficacy of omalizumab across clinical and patient-reported outcomes in patients with CRSwNP, independent of the underlying patient factors examined, including those with high eosinophil levels and those who have undergone previous surgery, which are associated with high recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: POLYP 1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03280550 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550); POLYP 2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03280537 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]