TY - JOUR
T1 - Considerations for the Use of Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps
AU - Luk, Hannah G.
AU - Janz, Tyler A.
AU - Siddiqui, Farrah N.
AU - Hardison, Scott A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2025. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Background: Interventions such as steroids, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), biologics, or a combination of these are available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). However, despite evidence supporting the efficacy of each approach, factors such as timing, cost, side effects, and patient preference need to be considered. The objective of this work was to provide a comparison between current biologics and considerations for each intervention when developing a treatment plan. Methods: Recent studies are referenced in a detailed description of current and developing biologics to compare U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications, mechanism of actions, notable side effects, dosage, and cost. Considerations for timing of treatment and duration of treatment when analyzing the utility of ESS, biologics, or a combination of both are highlighted. Results: Currently, 3 biologics are FDA-approved for the treatment of inadequately-controlled CRSwNP and 2 biologics demonstrate promise as potential agents. The overall trend in literature suggests that the combination of ESS to relieve polyps and improve medication delivery and biologics to facilitate anti-inflammatory effects is clinically impactful. Conclusion: Evidence to date aligns with current recommendations that biologics are a promising maintenance option for CRSwNP patients who have failed both medical management and complete ESS.
AB - Background: Interventions such as steroids, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), biologics, or a combination of these are available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). However, despite evidence supporting the efficacy of each approach, factors such as timing, cost, side effects, and patient preference need to be considered. The objective of this work was to provide a comparison between current biologics and considerations for each intervention when developing a treatment plan. Methods: Recent studies are referenced in a detailed description of current and developing biologics to compare U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications, mechanism of actions, notable side effects, dosage, and cost. Considerations for timing of treatment and duration of treatment when analyzing the utility of ESS, biologics, or a combination of both are highlighted. Results: Currently, 3 biologics are FDA-approved for the treatment of inadequately-controlled CRSwNP and 2 biologics demonstrate promise as potential agents. The overall trend in literature suggests that the combination of ESS to relieve polyps and improve medication delivery and biologics to facilitate anti-inflammatory effects is clinically impactful. Conclusion: Evidence to date aligns with current recommendations that biologics are a promising maintenance option for CRSwNP patients who have failed both medical management and complete ESS.
KW - CRSwNP
KW - biologics
KW - chronic rhinosinusitis
KW - endoscopic sinus surgery
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012717955
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012717955#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1177/01455613251363018
DO - 10.1177/01455613251363018
M3 - Review article
C2 - 40741996
AN - SCOPUS:105012717955
SN - 0145-5613
JO - Ear, Nose and Throat Journal
JF - Ear, Nose and Throat Journal
M1 - 01455613251363018
ER -