Efficacy and Predictors of Response to Biologic Therapy and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Patients With Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Biologics and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) treat refractory chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), but direct comparisons are lacking. We synthesized efficacy and subgroup data across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics and ESS. METHODS: PubMed was searched through December 2025 for RCTs and subgroup analyses of biologics or ESS for adult CRSwNP. Included were ten Phase-3 placebo-controlled biologic RCTs, two pragmatic ESS trials, and one head-to-head biologic trial. 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and nasal polyp score (NPS) effect sizes and subgroup interactions were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 13 trials (n = 3775) from 21 publications were included. By indirect comparison, tezepelumab and dupilumab produced the largest improvements (tezepelumab: SNOT-22: -27.4; NPS: -2.1; dupilumab: SNOT-22: -17 to -21; NPS: -1.7 to -2.1), while mepolizumab and omalizumab showed intermediate effects (SNOT-22: -10.6 to -16.5); benralizumab improved NPS but not SNOT-22, and depemokimab showed improvement below clinically discernible differences. ESS effects varied by trial and follow-up (SNOT-22: -21.9 at 6 months in MACRO vs. -4.9 at 12 months in PolypESS). Predictors of improvement differed across therapies (blood eosinophil count, NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, and prior ESS for dupilumab; asthma for benralizumab; baseline severity for ESS), while tezepelumab and omalizumab showed consistent efficacy without effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: ESS and biologics provide clinically meaningful benefit. Among biologics, dupilumab and tezepelumab demonstrated the largest effect sizes, though cross-trial differences in baseline severity, follow-up, and comparators limit indirect comparisons. Head-to-head trials and standardized subgroup analyses are needed to guide treatment selection.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Efficacy and Predictors of Response to Biologic Therapy and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Patients With Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review
- Date Crossref
- 09/09/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
University of California pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
UCLA Medical Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Oregon Health & Science University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Emory University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Vanderbilt University Medical Center pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Medical University of South Carolina pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Alabama at Birmingham pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Department of Head and Neck Surgery David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Los Angeles California USA pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
UCLA‐Caltech Medical Scientist Training Program Los Angeles California USA pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Science University Portland Oregon USA Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Oregon Health & pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Los Angeles California USA pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
University of California, UCLA Medical Center et Oregon Health & Science University, avec 8 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.