MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Tezepelumab on Upper and Lower Airway Outcomes in Adults With Severe, Uncontrolled Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps in Patients With and Without Comorbid Asthma: Results from the Phase 3 Waypoint Study

2025· article· en· W4410274704 on OpenAlexaff
M. Desrosiers, J. Han, Brian J. Lipworth, C. Hopkins, S.E. Lee, J. Mullol, Oliver Pfaar, Tanya M. Laidlaw, A.T. Peters, Andrew A. White, Christopher S. Ambrose, T. Li, C. Chen, Gun Almqvist, Mary Kay Margolis, Julie McLaren, Shankar Jagadeesh, Vaishali S. Mankad, Lila Bahadori, Sandhia Ponnarambil

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasal polypsChronic rhinosinusitisAsthmaAirwaySinusitisInternal medicineRespiratory tractWaypointChronic sinusitisGastroenterologyImmunologyRespiratory systemSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is associated with a high symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life. Comorbid respiratory diseases are common and contribute to disease severity in patients with CRSwNP. Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody that blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), significantly reduced NP size and improved patient-reported sino-nasal symptoms versus placebo in adults with CRSwNP in the WAYPOINT study (NCT04851964). This analysis evaluated the efficacy of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP and comorbid asthma. Methods: WAYPOINT was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) with severe CRSwNP were randomized (1:1) to tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Randomization was monitored to ensure that 50-70% of patients had comorbid asthma based on medical history; asthma diagnosis was not confirmed through study procedures. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline in total nasal polyp score (NPS) and biweekly mean nasal congestion score (NCS) at week 52. Prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with comorbid asthma assessed NPS and NCS, pre-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; key secondary endpoint) and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) score (secondary endpoint) at week 52. Results: Patients received tezepelumab (n=203) or placebo (n=205). Among patients with comorbid asthma (tezepelumab, n=122; placebo, n=126), at baseline, the mean (SD) pre-BD FEV1 was 2.89 (0.89) L, equating to 85.8% (16.4) of the predicted normal value, and the mean (SD) ACQ-6 score was 1.82 (1.16). At week 52, tezepelumab improved the total NPS in patients with comorbid asthma (LS mean difference versus placebo [95% CI]: −2.21 [−2.63, −1.80]) and without comorbid asthma (−1.84 [−2.35, −1.33]). Tezepelumab improved NCS at week 52 in patients with comorbid asthma (LS mean difference versus placebo [95% CI]: −1.13 [−1.35, −0.91]) and in those without (−0.87 [−1.15, −0.59]) comorbid asthma. Among patients with comorbid asthma, pre-BD FEV1 remained stable to week 52, with no significant differences between groups at week 52, and ACQ-6 score improved with tezepelumab versus placebo at week 52 (Table). In the overall population, asthma exacerbations were more frequently reported with placebo than tezepelumab (5.9% vs 0.5%). Conclusions: Tezepelumab significantly reduced upper airway symptoms, including NP size, and improved patient-reported nasal congestion versus placebo in adults with severe CRSwNP with and without comorbid asthma. Among those with comorbid asthma, tezepelumab simultaneously improved asthma control, which indicates an effect on lower airway symptoms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207