Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis: The Role and Expectations of Biologics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a noninvasive subtype of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) that usually develops in immunocompetent atopic individuals and is more common in geographic regions characterized by warm temperatures and high humidity, conducive to higher environmental fungal presence. Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis usually presents with unique computed tomography findings and significant polyp burden, yet patients often report minimal sinus symptoms. Patients with AFRS often have extremely elevated serum total and fungal-specific IgE levels. Treatment almost always requires surgery, in which adjuvant medical therapy is critical to success. However, until recently the choice of adjuvant therapy has consisted primarily of either oral and/or topical steroids. Although oral corticosteroids decrease recurrence after surgery, data for the effectiveness of other adjunctive pharmacologic agents, including topical and oral antifungal agents and immunotherapy, have remained unclear and hence are not recommended in recent guidelines including the International Consensus of Allergy and Rhinology. Three biologics, omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab, have recently been approved for treating CRSwNP in general, but clinical trials to date with these biologics did not involve AFRS patients. Recently published case reports and smaller prospective studies have shown good efficacy of these biologics on the AFRS subgroup of patients. This article provides an overview of the understanding of the pathophysiology of AFRS, implications of this understanding on the possible role of biologics, and clinical reports on the use of biologics in treating AFRS. Because biologics are indicated for treating CRSwNP, follow up real-world evidence studies are needed for AFRS. Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a noninvasive subtype of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) that usually develops in immunocompetent atopic individuals and is more common in geographic regions characterized by warm temperatures and high humidity, conducive to higher environmental fungal presence. Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis usually presents with unique computed tomography findings and significant polyp burden, yet patients often report minimal sinus symptoms. Patients with AFRS often have extremely elevated serum total and fungal-specific IgE levels. Treatment almost always requires surgery, in which adjuvant medical therapy is critical to success. However, until recently the choice of adjuvant therapy has consisted primarily of either oral and/or topical steroids. Although oral corticosteroids decrease recurrence after surgery, data for the effectiveness of other adjunctive pharmacologic agents, including topical and oral antifungal agents and immunotherapy, have remained unclear and hence are not recommended in recent guidelines including the International Consensus of Allergy and Rhinology. Three biologics, omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab, have recently been approved for treating CRSwNP in general, but clinical trials to date with these biologics did not involve AFRS patients. Recently published case reports and smaller prospective studies have shown good efficacy of these biologics on the AFRS subgroup of patients. This article provides an overview of the understanding of the pathophysiology of AFRS, implications of this understanding on the possible role of biologics, and clinical reports on the use of biologics in treating AFRS. Because biologics are indicated for treating CRSwNP, follow up real-world evidence studies are needed for AFRS.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».