Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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.

Keywords

chronic rhinosinusitis CRSwNP endoscopic sinus surgery biologics

Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyposis Background

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is defined as sinonasal inflammation persisting for more than 12 weeks with at least 2 cardinal symptoms confirmed by endoscopic or radiographic findings.¹ CRS with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a phenotypic subgroup defined as meeting the criteria for CRS, with the additional presence of polyps.¹ Histologically, CRSwNP is characterized by excessive immune response, with disruption of the nasal epithelial barrier by basal cell proliferation, goblet cell metaplasia, and reduced ciliated cell differentiation.²

CRSwNP may be further characterized by endotype. The most common endotypes associated with CRSwNP in North America are type 2 (T2), type 3 (T3), and type 1 (T1).^1,3 With the T2 endotype, environmental insults induce a response characterized by increased tissue eosinophils, basophils, and mast cells, along with elevated type 2 T-helper cell (Th2) cytokines.^4,5 These Th2 cytokines include interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, IL-13, and IL-31.^2,5,6 IL-4 has been found to increase epithelial permeability, decrease wound repair, and play a significant role in B-cell activation and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production.² IL-5 is not only essential for the maturation of eosinophils but also serves as a growth factor for B lymphocytes.^4,7 IL-13 has been observed to play a role in goblet cell metaplasia.² Both IL-4 and IL-13 have been shown to drive Th2 cell differentiation, increase local production of Ig, and facilitate airway remodeling through influencing mucus secretion and matrix deposition.^2,4

Studies have investigated how these Th2 cytokines are affected by upstream pathways, centered in the respiratory epithelium.^4,8 Since the epithelium serves as a mechanical barrier to the environment, cytokines released by epithelial cells in response to injury play a critical signaling role in the immune response. Specifically, these epithelial cytokines include thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), IL-25, and IL-33.⁴ TSLP contributes to mediating the differentiation of naïve T cells (Th0) into Th2 cells and augments the activity of a subtype of innate immune cells that release significant amounts of Th2 cytokines like IL-5 and IL-13.⁴ IL-33 recruits and enhances the activity of Th2 cells as well as mast cells, basophils, and the production of IL-13.^4,8 IL-25 upregulates the IL-25 receptor on Th2 cells, thus increasing the recruitment of eosinophils and production of the Th2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-5.^4,8 Recent studies have also investigated the involvement of IL-9 and IL-17 in this epithelial signaling pathway.⁹

As T2 is the most prevalent endotype, most patients with CRSwNP respond to Th2-targeted biologics. If a patient does not respond to these biologics and has no objective evidence of atopy (ie, positive allergy testing, eosinophilia), clinicians should consider whether the patient’s nasal polyposis (NP) may be of a different endotype. Patients with a T3 endotype would benefit from biologics targeting IL-17 or IL-22, which are not currently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for CRSwNP.³ Similarly, while there are many biologics specific to the primary cytokines involved in the T1 endotype, such as TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma, and IL-12, they also lack FDA-approval for polyps.³ From a practical standpoint, the lower prevalence of T1 in North America means that there is less economic impetus for study of these biologics for use with CRSwNP.

Ultimately, CRSwNP may present with a heterogenous histology.³ Cases may be associated with both eosinophilic and neutrophilic infiltrates, highlighting the potential complexity of multiple overlapping processes.³ Accordingly, future treatments for CRSwNP must look at targeting both the traditional T2 profile of cytokines, and those involved in T1 and T3 inflammation.

Immune Modulators for CRS

Biological immune modulators, or biologics, are a class of medications derived from biological processes. They include monoclonal antibodies that target specific components of the immune system. Instead of global immune suppression as seen with corticosteroids, biologic immune modulators precisely target specific steps in the inflammatory cascade.^1,4 Given the significant overlap in mechanisms behind the pathogenesis of asthma and atopic dermatitis with those causing CRSwNP, certain biologics initially developed for the treatment of the former have been adapted for use in refractory CRSwNP.

Dupilumab (DUPIXENT) was the first biologic approved for inadequately-controlled CRSwNP by the FDA in 2019.¹⁰ This was followed in 2020 by omalizumab (XOLAIR), which was FDA-approved as an add on maintenance therapy for CRSwNP in adult patients with inadequate response to nasal corticosteroids and evidence of IgE-mediated atopy in the form of positive in vitro or skin allergy testing.⁶ Shortly after, the FDA-approved mepolizumab (NUCALA) as an add on maintenance treatment in adult patients with CRSwNP.¹¹ CRSwNP is not currently listed as an indication for benralizumab (FASENRA) as of the time of this publication. The FDA, however, has issued a complete response letter requesting additional clinical data, suggesting that this may be on the horizon.¹²

Current Biologics

Dupilumab

Dupilumab (DUPIXENT) is an anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibody. As IL-4Rα is the receptor subunit for IL-4 and IL-13, dupilumab inhibits the downstream effects of both of these cytokines.^1,2 It has also been shown to suppress leukotriene E4 levels, which accordingly decreases the activation of mast cells.¹³ Consequently, dupilumab has been found to decrease endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS), decrease Lund-Mackay Computed Tomography (CT) scores, improve nasal congestion, and improve sense of smell in patients undergoing treatment.^1,14 It is FDA-approved for patients 12 years and older with severe CRSwNP who have not improved with other medical and surgical management interventions.¹ Dupilumab is self-administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks after an initial training session and observation period in the clinic setting.^15,16 It is available in a prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen, both containing 300 mg of the medication.¹⁵ Based on the current listed price and recommended dosage, the annual price is $49 400.¹⁷

While rare, notable side effects include conjunctivitis and hypereosinophilia.¹ It should be noted that dupilumab should be used in caution in patients with high eosinophil levels due to potential unmasking of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (eGPA).

Omalizumab

Omalizumab (XOLAIR) is an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody that inhibits binding of IgE to its receptors on mast cells and basophils, thus mediating the allergic response.¹ Studies, while limited by sample size, suggest that omalizumab decreases polyp scores.^1,4 Omalizumab is currently FDA-approved for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, chronic idiopathic urticaria, IgE-mediated food allergy, and CRSwNP.¹⁸ It is particularly useful for patients with severe CRSwNP and concomitant poorly-controlled allergic asthma.¹ Omalizumab is administered by subcutaneous injection in an office setting by a health care professional, given the elevated risk of anaphylaxis compared with other biologics.¹⁸ Dosing is adjusted based on patients’ weight and pretreatment serum IgE.¹⁹ Doses range from 75 to 600 mg, administered every 2 or 4 weeks.¹⁹ Based on the current listed price, assuming a 65 kg body weight and 250 IU/mL of pretreatment serum IgE, the annual price is ~$45 000.²⁰

Primary areas of concern for adverse effects include malignancy, cardiovascular disease, and anaphylaxis.⁴ This drug has the highest risk for anaphylaxis among all biologics used for CRSwNP, with studies estimating a rate of 0.09% to 0.2%.^21-23

Mepolizumab

Mepolizumab (NUCALA) is an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody that directly neutralizes free IL-5 levels in serum, thus playing an important role in eosinophil maturation.^1,4 Two trial studies suggest that mepolizumab decreases polyp size and the need for revision sinus surgery.¹ It is FDA-approved for CRSwNP and is especially suitable for patients with comorbid eosinophilic asthma.¹ In addition, mepolizumab is now FDA-approved for the treatment of eGPA.²⁴ This drug is self-administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks, following an initial injection and observation period in the office setting.²⁵ The current estimated annual price is $44 268.²⁶

Its most common adverse effects are injection site reaction and oropharyngeal pain.²⁵ Notably, this drug is considered safer than dupilumab for use in patients with elevated eosinophil counts.¹

Benralizumab

Benralizumab (FASENRA) is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the IL-5Ra subunit on eosinophils, basophils, mast cells, and some B cells.^1,4 This mechanism results in competitive inhibition of IL-5 and induced apoptosis of eosinophils and basophils, which is unique compared with mepolizumab which only targets eosinophils.⁴ Historically, benralizumab has proven effective in reducing eosinophil counts in airway mucosa and sputum for patients with eosinophilic asthma.⁴ Benralizumab is currently FDA-approved in the United States for severe asthma.²⁷ Like mepolizumab, benralizumab is now FDA-approved for the treatment of eGPA.²⁸ At time of publication, this drug is not yet FDA-approved for CRSwNP, though approval is currently being sought. Phase III clinical trials have been performed for CRSwNP and show promise in nasal polyp (NP) size and nasal obstruction.²⁹ Benralizumab may be administered via subcutaneous injection at home using a prefilled pen or in the office setting by a prefilled syringe. Dosing for eGPA is 30 mg every 4 weeks.²⁷ The current listed price is ~$66 000/year.³⁰ The most common adverse effects of benralizumab are headache and pharyngitis.²⁷

Tezepelumab

Tezepelumab (Tezspire) is a monoclonal antibody targeting TSLP, a cytokine produced by epithelial cells that has been shown to play an upstream role in the pathogenesis of asthma.³¹ This cytokine is released on disruption of the respiratory epithelium and binds to receptors on immune cells, producing the downstream inflammatory response.³² Tezepelumab was created to target this mechanism and is currently FDA-approved for severe asthma.³³ Given the upstream effects of TSLP, it has also been speculated that this drug could be effective in the treatment of CRSwNP. Preliminary results of a Phase III clinical trial (WAYPOINT) have demonstrated that tezepelumab provides statistically significant reduction in NPs in patients with CRSwNP.³¹ The results of this trial are awaiting peer review and publication.³⁴ Tezepelumab may be administered as a subcutaneous injection via either prefilled pen at home or prefilled syringe in an office setting by a health care professional.³³ This 210 mg dose is administered every 4 weeks.³³ The current list price is ~$52 000/year.³⁵ The most-frequently-reported side effects of tezepelumab include pharyngitis, arthralgia, and back pain.³³

New Horizons

Additional biologics are currently in development for atopic dermatitis and asthma. Because of pathophysiological similarities with these conditions, many of these biologics show promise for CRSwNP.

Tralokinumab is an FDA-approved treatment option for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.³⁶ Two identically-designed clinical trials demonstrated that tralokinumab was effective for improving the severity and symptoms of atopic dermatitis including pruritus, sleep disruption, and quality of life.³⁷ Tralokinumab was also investigated in phase 3 trials as a treatment for asthma; however, results were inconclusive.^38,39 The mechanism of action of tralokinumab involves preventing IL-13 from binding to both IL-13Rα1 and IL-13Rα2.⁴⁰ This mechanism suggests that it could have efficacy in patients with CRSwNP, though this has not yet been assessed through clinical trials.

Lebrikizumab is another FDA-approved treatment option for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis for patients who weigh at least 88 pounds.⁴¹ Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets IL-13 to inhibit binding to IL-13Rα1 and the formation of the IL-13Rα1/IL-4Rα receptor signaling complex.⁴² As with tralokinumab, this drug’s mechanism targeting IL-13 binding suggests that it could have efficacy in patients with CRSwNP. This would need to be assessed further through clinical trials.

Nemolizumab is an FDA-approved treatment for prurigo nodularis.⁴³ Nemolizumab is an IL-31Rα antagonist.⁴⁴ Its mechanism of action involves blocking IL-31 signaling, thus suppressing the downstream immunologic effects of Th2 cells, eosinophils, basophils, and macrophages.⁴⁴ By targeting the downstream effects of these various cell types, it is conceivable that nemolizumab could eventually be used to treat CRSwNP.

Other therapeutic targets in development involve the OX40-OX40L pathway. OX40 is a co stimulatory T-cell receptor expressed on effector and regulatory T cells.⁴⁵ Its ligand, OX40L, is expressed on macrophages and mediated by TSLP.^45,46 OX40-OX40L ligation induces Th2 differentiation.^45,46 Consequently, OX40-OX40L poses as an attractive upstream target.⁴⁶

Treatment Strategy

Current Guidelines

The 2019 National Institute of Health proposed treatment strategy for CRSwNP begins with medical management, shifting to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) if initial medical management fails.⁴⁷ If medical management and ESS fail, biologics are indicated as an adjunct treatment to ongoing topical corticosteroids.⁴⁷ The 2019 European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway diseases (EUFOREA) takes a more aggressive stance in regard to the use of biologics, setting forth 5 criteria that should be assessed in treating patients with CRSwNP: (1) evidence of Th2 inflammation, characterized by the presence of eosinophilic airway inflammation and related cytokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and/or detection of IgE, (2) systemic corticosteroid usage in the past 2 years, (3) significantly impaired quality of life, (4) significant smell loss, and (5) diagnosis of comorbid asthma.⁴⁸ If a patient is surgically naïve and meets 4 of the above criteria, they may be considered for biologic therapy according to EUFOREA standards. If the patient has already undergone ESS, the presence of 3 of the criteria are sufficient to consider biologic therapy.⁴⁸

ESS and Biologic Immune Modulators

Effective use of biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP requires consideration of the timing of their use relative to sinus surgery. The purpose of ESS is to restore dysfunctional sinuses by surgically removing diseased mucosa and bony partitions in order to open the natural drainage pathway.^1,49 Studies suggest that a complete ESS is more beneficial than a limited ESS like a simple polypectomy.^1,47 A complete ESS involves the removal of all bony septations between sinuses and wide opening of the natural ostia. Cohort participants with a more complete ESS were associated with fewer revision surgeries and a greater degree of improved postoperative 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores.^1,47 Removal of polyps is also believed to facilitate more effective topical corticosteroid delivery.^1,50 Continued postoperative medical therapy, such as steroid irrigations, helps to control symptoms and mitigate polyp regrowth.⁴⁷

Early ESS Versus Early Biologic

For CRSwNP patients, initial medical management with topical steroids and irrigations is universally recommended by medical allergists and otolaryngologists alike. When this initial medical management fails, however, treatment strategies have begun to vary between otolaryngologists and medical allergists. Otolaryngologists typically recommend surgery after medical failure while some medical allergists may gravitate to earlier use of biologics.⁵¹ Thus, it is important to compare outcomes between ESS and biologics.

Miglani et al performed a prospective multicenter cohort study comparing patients undergoing ESS with those using dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab at the 24th and 52nd week.⁵² ESS and dupilumab had comparable SNOT-22 scores at both the 24th and 52nd week and similar smell identification at the 24th week.⁵² Compared with omalizumab and mepolizumab, ESS was consistently more effective in terms of improvement in SNOT-22 scores and NPS.⁵²

Likewise, clinical trial data revealed that some patients who are started on early biologics ultimately require surgery.⁵ Of these patients that demonstrated persistent symptoms and polyps, 1.1% were on dupilumab, 8.7% were on mepolizumab, and 18% were on omalizumab.⁵

Comparing ESS With Biologic Therapy to Biologic Monotherapy

Studies have sought to compare the use of biologics alone (monotherapy) to combination therapy with both ESS and biologics. Garvey et al performed a retrospective matched cohort study comparing CRSwNP patients who received biologics only with patients on dupilumab or mepolizumab at the time of ESS.⁵⁰ The ESS-biologic cohort had significantly improved polyp burden and SNOT-22, which suggests that the combination of ESS to relieve polyps and improve medication delivery and biologics to facilitate anti-inflammatory effects has a significant clinical impact.⁵⁰ This fits with the authors’ clinical experience.

Cost

Duration of treatment is a key factor in considering cost between treatment plans. ESS may have an initial one time higher cost, but with sustained benefits, whereas biologics may have an initial lower cost, but require continued treatment and thus a greater net final cost.⁵¹

The reported costs of ESS vary with sensitivity to extensivity of procedures, complications, and location.⁵³ A study sourced from charges from the health care system estimates ESS from the payer perspective to be ~$12K (adjusted to 2024 USD).^53,54 In comparison, the cost of biologics range from $10K to $40K annually depending on frequency of use.⁵⁵ In an economic model evaluating the management of a patient for 36 years, the ESS strategy cost $50 436.99 with 9.8 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in comparison with a dupilumab treatment strategy that cost $536 420.22 with a 8.95 QALY.⁵⁶ This 36 year model suggested that dupilumab was more costly and less effective. In another model, the ESS strategy costs $20 626 with a 1.526 QALY compared with a dupilumab treatment strategy that costs $194 764 with a 1.779 QALY.⁵⁷ This 10 year model suggested that dupilumab was 9 times more costly and only slightly more effective.

Choice of Biologic

Once the decision is made to employ a biologic, it is important to choose the right medication for a specific patient. There are no randomized controlled trials that directly compare the effectiveness of individual biologics to one another, when it comes to treating CRSwNP.^47,52 However, individual studies and indirect comparisons highlight important differences in mechanism and recommendations.

These considerations have been included in the International Consensus Statement of Allergy and Rhinology (ICAR) 2021 guidelines.¹ Among the 3 FDA-approved biologics, dupilumab is the only drug in this category with level A evidence in the most recent ICAR document.¹ Omalizumab has been assigned level B evidence, with mepolizumab receiving level C evidence. Based on a self-reported survey study among American Rhinologic Society members, dupilumab was found to be the most common biologic used in surgery-naïve patients, ~25× that of omalizumab and ~16× that of mepolizumab.⁵⁸

Duration

Current evidence supports the assumption that biologics most likely require lifelong treatment to maintain efficacy.^52,55,59 Symptom reoccurrence was observed to begin within 1 to 2 months of biologic cessation.⁵² In various studies of biologics, findings suggest that following cessation, patients on dupilumab had worse symptoms and higher NPS.⁵⁹ Patients on omalizumab had higher NPS but with eosinophil counts below baseline levels, and patients on dupilumab had higher NPS and eosinophil counts returning to baseline.⁵⁹ For mepolizumab, it was observed in a pharmaceutical-funded phase III clinical trial study that patients experienced reduced NP size and reported improved symptoms over 24 weeks following the cessation of treatment after 52 weeks.⁵⁹ These results indicate an opportunity for future research into the duration of clinical impact after biologic cessation. Likewise, the prolonged duration of therapy for biologics should be considered in comparison with complete ESS.

Final Considerations

The estimated prevalence of CRSwNP is 4.2% in the United States and 4.3% in Europe.⁵⁷ Symptoms of CRSwNP pose a significant detriment to quality of life. Thus, it is valuable to understand the treatment options available. Factors to consider in developing a treatment strategy for CRSwNP include severity, comorbidities, quality of life, cost, potential side effects, and patient preference. Biologics provide an opportunity for continued research into targeting different aspects of the immunologic pathways involved in CRSwNP. Ultimately, given the balance between cost and benefit, evidence to date aligns with current recommendations, with biologics acting as a maintenance option for CRSwNP patients who have failed both medical management and complete ESS (Figure 1 and Table 1).

Figure 1.

Pathophysiology of CRSwNP and therapeutic targets of current and promising biologics for the treatment of CRSwNP. Created in BioRender.com.

Table 1.

Comparison of Biologics for FDA Indications, Target, Mechanism, Notable Side Effects, Dose, and Cost.

Biologic	FDA indications	FDA-approved age group	Target	Mechanism	Notable side effects	Dose/mo	Frequency of dosing	Home/office administration	USD/y
Dupilumab (Dupixent)	Atopic dermatitis	Adult and pediatric 2 y and older^a	Monoclonal antibody, binds to IL-4Rα	Inhibit IL-4 and IL-13 signaling for Th2-mediated inflammation	Conjunctivitis	600 mg	Every 2 wk	Home	49 400
	Asthma	Adult and pediatric 2 y and older^a			Eosinophilia
	CRSwNP	Adult and pediatric 6 mo and older^b			Insomnia
	Eosinophilic esophagitis				Toothache
	Prurigo nodularis				Gastritis
Omalizumab (Xolair)	Asthma	Adult 18 y and older	Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody	Inhibits binding of IgE to receptors on mast cells and basophils	Anaphylaxis	225 mg^c	Every 2 or 4 wk	Office	45 000^d
	CRSwNP				Headache
	IgE-mediated food allergy				Upper abdominal pain
	CSU				Dizziness
Mepolizumab (Nucala)	Asthma	Adult 18 y and older	Anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody	Inhibits IL-5 signaling for eosinophil maturation	Injection site reaction Oropharyngeal pain	100 mg	Every 4 wk	Home	44 268
	CRSwNP
	eGPA
	HES
Benralizumab (Fasenra)	Asthma	Adult and pediatric 6 y and older	Binds to IL-5Ra	Inhibits binding of IL-5 to receptors for mast cell, basophil, and eosinophil mediation	Headache	30 mg^e	Every 4 wk	Home	66 000^e
Benralizumab (Fasenra)	eGPA	Adult and pediatric 6 y and older	Binds to IL-5Ra		Pharyngitis	30 mg^e	Every 4 wk	Home	66 000^e
Tezepelumab (Tezspire)	Asthma	Adult and pediatric 12 y and older	Anti-TSLP monoclonal antibody	Inhibits TSLP signaling to mediate downstream inflammation pathways and the development of Th2	Pharyngitis	210 mg	Every 4 wk	Office	52 000
					Arthralgia
					Back pain

Abbreviations: CRSwNP, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis; CSU, chronic spontaneous urticarial; FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; eGPA, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; HES, hypereosinophilic syndrome; IgE, immunoglobulin E; IL, interleukin; Th, T helper; TSLP, thymic stromal lymphopoietin.

Prefilled pen.

Prefilled syringe.

Assumes 60 to 70 kg body weight with 200 to 300 IU/mL pretreatment serum IgE.

Median range of listed price.

For eGPA.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hannah G. Luk

Tyler A. Janz

Scott A. Hardison

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Orlandi

Kingdom

Smith

, et al. International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11(3):213-739. doi:10.1002/alr.22741

Fieux

Carsuzaa

Bellanger

, et al. Dupilumab prevents nasal epithelial function alteration by IL-4 in vitro: evidence for its efficacy. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024;14(8):1337-1349. doi:10.1002/alr.23343

Kato

Peters

Stevens

Schleimer

Tan

Kern

. Endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis: relationships to disease phenotypes, pathogenesis, clinical findings, and treatment approaches. Allergy. 2022;77(3):812-826. doi:10.1111/all.15074

Lam

Kern

Luong

. Is there a future for biologics in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis? Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(9):935-942. doi:10.1002/alr.21780

Baird

Masliah

Filip

, et al. Histopathologic features of biologic therapy nonresponders in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024;14(5):939-949. doi:10.1002/alr.23283

Bachert

Han

Desrosiers

, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1638-1650. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1

Png

Kalish

Campbell

, et al. Predictors of persistent disease in biologic treated type 2 diffuse/eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis undergoing surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024;14(5):909-918. doi:10.1002/alr.23282

Iqbal

Kao

SST

Ooi

. The role of biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(2):165-174. doi:10.1002/alr.22473

Olcott

Han

Cunningham

Franzese

. Interleukin-9 and interleukin-17C in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(8):841-847. doi:10.1002/alr.21745

10.

Rosenberg

. FDA approves dupilumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. AJMC. June 26, 2019. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.ajmc.com/view/fda-approves-dupilumab-for-chronic-rhinosinusitis-with-nasal-polyps

11.

Han

Bachert

Fokkens

, et al. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(10):1141-1153. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00097-7

12.

AstraZeneca. Update on US regulatory review of Fasenra in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. March 14, 2022. Accessed October 13, 2024. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2022/update-on-us-review-of-fasenra-in-nasal-polyps.html

13.

Bachert

Han

Desrosiers

, et al. Efficacy and safety of benralizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149(4):1309-1317.e12. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2021.08.030

14.

Bachert

Mannent

Naclerio

, et al. Effect of subcutaneous dupilumab on nasal polyp burden in patients with chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(5):469. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.19330

15.

DUPIXENT^® (dupilumab). Injection instructions & support. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.dupixent.com/taking-dupixent/injection-support-center

16.

Regeneron. Dupilumab (Dupixent; Package Insert). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2024.

17.

DUPIXENT^® (dupilumab). Pricing and insurance. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.dupixent.com/support-savings/cost-insurance

18.

Genentech. Omalizumab (Xolair; Package Insert). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2024.

19.

XOLAIR^® (omalizumab). HCP. Xolair. Dosing information for IgE-mediated food allergy patients. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.xolairhcp.com/food-allergies/dosing-and-administration/dosing.html

20.

XOLAIR^® (omalizumab). Xolair. Pricing. Cost. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.xolair.com/cost.html

21.

Kim

Leigh

Becker

. Omalizumab: practical considerations regarding the risk of anaphylaxis. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2010;6(1):32. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-6-32

22.

Cox

Platts-Mills

TAE

Finegold

Schwartz

Simons

FER

Wallace

. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force Report on omalizumab-associated anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(6):1373-1377. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.09.032

23.

Harrison

MacRae

Karsh

Santucci

Yang

. Anaphylaxis and serum sickness in patients receiving omalizumab: reviewing the data in light of clinical experience. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115(1):77-78. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2015.04.014

24.

Stiles

. FDA approves first treatment for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Pulm Adv. December 14, 2017. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/news/fda-approves-first-treatment-for-eosinophilic-granulomatosis-with-polyangiitis/

25.

GlaxoSmithKline. Mepolizumab (Nucala; Package Insert). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2023.

26.

GSKForYou. GSK pricing information and details. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.gskforyou.com/gsk-pricing-information/

27.

AstraZeneca. Benralizumab (Fasenra; Package Insert). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2024.

28.

AstraZeneca. Fasenra approved in the US for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. September 18, 2024. Accessed November 24, 2024. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2024/fasenra-approved-in-the-us-for-eosinophilic-granulomatosis-with-polyangiitis.html

29.

Tversky

Lane

Azar

. Benralizumab effect on severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP): a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Clin Exp Allergy. 2021;51(6):836-844. doi:10.1111/cea.13852

30.

FASENRA^® (benralizumab). Cost and affordability. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.fasenra.com/cost-affordability.html

31.

Menzies-Gow

Corren

Bourdin

, et al. Tezepelumab in adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(19):1800-1809. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2034975

32.

Gauvreau

Sehmi

Ambrose

Griffiths

. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin: its role and potential as a therapeutic target in asthma. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2020;24(8):777-792. doi:10.1080/14728222.2020.1783242

33.

AstraZeneca. Tezepelumab (Tezspire; Package Insert). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2023.

34.

AstraZeneca. A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3—Efficacy and Safety Study of Tezepelumab in Participants With Severe Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyposis (WAYPOINT). clinicaltrials.gov. 2024. Accessed November 24, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04851964

35.

TEZSPIRE^® (tezepelumab-ekko). Cost and affordability. Subcutaneous injection 210 mg. 2025. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.tezspire.com/en/home/cost-affordability.html

36.

LEO Pharma, Inc. Tralokinumab (Adbry; Package Insert). U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2023.

37.

Capozza

. Two identically designed studies to test the effectiveness of tralokinumab for treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(3):e101-e102. doi:10.1111/bjd.19778

38.

Panettieri

Sjöbring

Péterffy

, et al. Tralokinumab for severe, uncontrolled asthma (STRATOS 1 and STRATOS 2): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(7):511-525. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30184-X

39.

Gottlow

Svensson

Lipkovich

, et al. Application of structured statistical analyses to identify a biomarker predictive of enhanced tralokinumab efficacy in phase III clinical trials for severe, uncontrolled asthma. BMC Pulm Med. 2019;19(1):129. doi:10.1186/s12890-019-0889-4

40.

Popovic

Breed

Rees

, et al. Structural characterisation reveals mechanism of IL-13-neutralising monoclonal antibody tralokinumab as inhibition of binding to IL-13Rα1 and IL-13Rα2. J Mol Biol. 2017;429(2):208-219. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2016.12.005

41.

Eli Lilly and Company. FDA approves Lilly’s EBGLYSS™ (lebrikizumab-lbkz) for adults and children 12 years and older with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. September 13, 2024. Accessed March 6, 2025. https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/fda-approves-lillys-ebglysstm-lebrikizumab-lbkz-adults-and

42.

Guttman-Yassky

Blauvelt

Eichenfield

, et al. Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab, a high-affinity interleukin 13 inhibitor, in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: a phase 2b randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(4):411-420. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0079

43.

Research C for DE and. Drug Trials Snapshots: NEMLUVIO. FDA. Published online October 29, 2024. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/drug-trials-snapshots-nemluvio

44.

Kwatra

Yosipovitch

Legat

, et al. Phase 3 trial of nemolizumab in patients with prurigo nodularis. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(17):1579-1589. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2301333

45.

Lé

Torres

. OX40-OX40L inhibition for the treatment of atopic dermatitis—focus on rocatinlimab and amlitelimab. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(12):2753. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14122753

46.

Kaur

Brightling

. OX40/OX40 ligand interactions in T-cell regulation and asthma. Chest. 2012;141(2):494-499. doi:10.1378/chest.11-1730

47.

Roland

Smith

Schlosser

, et al. Guidance for contemporary use of biologics in management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: discussion from a National Institutes of Health-sponsored workshop. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(9):1037-1042. doi:10.1002/alr.22633

48.

Fokkens

Lund

Bachert

, et al. EUFOREA consensus on biologics for CRSwNP with or without asthma. Allergy. 2019;74(12):2312-2319. doi:10.1111/all.13875

49.

Hardison

Senior

. The argument against the use of dupilumab in patients with limited polyp burden in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;52:64. doi:10.1186/s40463-023-00668-z

50.

Garvey

Naimi

Duffy

, et al. Optimizing the timing of biologic and surgical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024;14(3):651-659. doi:10.1002/alr.23246

51.

Han

Bosso

Cho

, et al. Multidisciplinary consensus on a stepwise treatment algorithm for management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11(10):1407-1416. doi:10.1002/alr.22851

52.

Miglani

Soler

Smith

Mace

Schlosser

. A comparative analysis of endoscopic sinus surgery versus biologics for treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2023;13(2):116-128. doi:10.1002/alr.23059

53.

Yim

Smith

Alt

Orlandi

. The value of endoscopic sinus surgery in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2021;6(1):58-63. doi:10.1002/lio2.523

54.

Smith

Orlandi

Rudmik

. Cost of adult chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review. Laryngoscope. 2015;125(7):1547-1556. doi:10.1002/lary.25180

55.

Roland

Regenberg

Luong

, et al. Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: economics and ethics. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11(11):1524-1528. doi:10.1002/alr.22864

56.

Scangas

Ting

, et al. Cost utility analysis of dupilumab versus endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(1):E26-E33. doi:10.1002/lary.28648

57.

Parasher

Gliksman

Segarra

Lin

Rudmik

Quast

. Economic evaluation of dupilumab versus endoscopic sinus surgery for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2022;12(6):813-820. doi:10.1002/alr.22936

58.

Ayoub

Sbeih

Bleier

. Contemporary practice patterns for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024;14(11):1830-1833. doi:10.1002/alr.23392

59.

Desrosiers

Diamant

Castelnuovo

, et al. Sustained efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: SYNAPSE 24-week treatment-free follow-up. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024;14(1):18-31. doi:10.1002/alr.23219

Considerations for the Use of Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyposis Background

Immune Modulators for CRS

Current Biologics

Dupilumab

Omalizumab

Mepolizumab

Benralizumab

Tezepelumab

New Horizons

Treatment Strategy

Current Guidelines

ESS and Biologic Immune Modulators

Early ESS Versus Early Biologic

Comparing ESS With Biologic Therapy to Biologic Monotherapy

Cost

Choice of Biologic

Duration

Final Considerations

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References