Skip to main content
Download PDF

Consensus on the management of united airways disease with type 2 inflammation: a multidisciplinary Delphi study

Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology volume 19, Article number: 34 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Scientific evidence on patients with multimorbid type 2 asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) from a united airways disease (UAD) perspective remains scarce, despite the frequent coexistence of these entities. We aimed to generate expert consensus-based recommendations for the management of UAD patients.

Methods

Using a two-round Delphi method, Spanish expert allergists, pulmonologists and otolaryngologists expressed their agreement on 32 statements (52 items) on a 9-point Likert scale, classified as appropriate (median 7–9), uncertain (4–6) or inappropriate (1–3). Consensus was considered when at least two-thirds of the panel scored within the range containing the median.

Results

A panel of 30 experts reached consensus on the appropriateness of 43 out of the 52 (82.7%) items. The usefulness of certain biomarkers (tissue and peripheral blood eosinophil count, serum total IgE, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) in the identification and follow-up of type 2 inflammation, and assessment of the response to biologics, were agreed. Some of these biomarkers were also associated with disease severity and/or recurrence after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Consensus was achieved on treatment strategies related to the prescription of anti-IL-4/IL-13 or anti-IgE agents, concomitant treatment with systemic corticosteroids, and combining or switching to biologics with a different mechanism of action, considering a number of UAD clinical scenarios.

Conclusion

We provide expert-based recommendations to assist in clinical decision-making for the management of patients with multimorbid type 2 asthma and CRSwNP. Specific clinical trials and real-world studies focusing on the single-entity UAD are required to address controversial items.

Background

The concept of united airways disease (UAD) embodies a comprehensive approach to the management of upper and lower respiratory diseases, which are anatomically and immunologically related [1, 2]. Several UAD phenotypes and underlying endotypes have been described, of which the multimorbidity of asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is one of the most frequent [2]. The term multimorbidity is used to indicate the clustering and co-occurrence of diseases with a common pathological mechanism in an individual where the primary disease is not clear [3]. Clinically, in Caucasian populations, CRSwNP with asthma is characterized by tissue eosinophilia and high local IgE levels [4] Increasing severity of asthma is associated with greater prevalence and severity of CRSwNP [5, 6] while the multimorbidity of CRSwNP and asthma is associated with more severe sinonasal symptoms and worse quality of life [4]. It has been estimated that asthma affects 30–70% of CRSwNP patients [7], and CRSwNP can be found in approximately 30% of asthma patients [6, 8].

Type 2 (T2) inflammation is the most common endotype in both asthma and CRSwNP Caucasian populations [9, 10], and it is characterized by the presence of Th2 and T2 innate lymphoid cells that secrete T2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13), eosinophilia, and high IgE titers [11]. Accordingly, several biomarkers are used in routine clinical practice to assess T2 inflammation, including blood (≥ 150–300 cells/µl) and tissue (≥ 10 cells/hpf) eosinophil count, total serum IgE (≥ 100 IU/ml), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 25–30 ppb and/or positive specific IgE [12, 13].

Currently, combined therapeutic strategies for severe asthma and CRSwNP are mainly focused on reducing systemic corticosteroids (SCS) in maintenance and bursts, thereby minimizing asthma exacerbations and worsening of CRSwNP [12, 13], and increasing the use of biologics [14, 15]. In addition, the clinical benefit of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in asthma outcomes has been consistently reported [16,17,18]. Nevertheless, clinical practice guidelines for the management of asthma and/or CRSwNP patients still do not consider joint management of multimorbidity from the UAD perspective [12, 13, 19].

Overall, scientific evidence on the management of multimorbid patients is scarce because clinical trials and real-world studies mostly evaluate the treatment of asthma or CRSwNP as single entities, or considering each a comorbid condition, rather than UAD. As such, several studies reporting data on biomarkers [20,21,22], biologics [23,24,25], SCS [26,27,28], and ESS [16,17,18] have been published in recent years. Consequently, the management of UAD patients, which is a common clinical scenario, constitutes a challenge for the healthcare professionals involved, including allergists, pulmonologists, and otolaryngologists (ENT). In this context, we explored experts’ opinions on several controversial items, with the aim of providing consensus-based recommendations for the identification of phenotypes and underlying endotypes, optimal treatments, and strategies to follow up patients with multimorbid T2 asthma and CRSwNP.

Methods

Study design

This study was designed based on a modified Delphi method and included a Spanish multidisciplinary board of allergists, pulmonologists, and ENT specialists with clinical expertise in the management of asthma and CRSwNP. A questionnaire was first developed by a scientific committee and participants were then asked to respond to several statements in a two-round online Delphi survey [29].

Scientific committee and participants

The scientific committee consisted of 3 allergists (JDO, CCo, SQ), 3 pulmonologists (MBA, CCi, FC), and 3 ENT specialists (JM, AC, IA) with extensive expertise in the management of asthma, CRSwNP and their multimorbidity. The committee members were responsible for developing the Delphi questionnaire, reviewing final outcomes, and interpreting the results. An expert panel of 30 members was selected by the scientific committee from the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC) (n = 10), the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) (n = 10), and the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) (n = 10). Members were contacted by email to participate as panelists in the Delphi survey. Inclusion criteria were: (1) working in clinical practice within the Spanish National Health System, in public or private centers, and (2) at least five years of expertise in the management of patients with asthma and CRSwNP. Participants were identified across several Spanish geographical regions to guarantee appropriate representativeness. Due to a lack of response, two additional experts from SEAIC and one from SEPAR were contacted.

Questionnaire

The Delphi questionnaire was drafted after a previously published systematic review that summarized recent evidence on the management of UAD (PROSPERO CRD42021262844) [30]. Briefly, a systematic literature search of international databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted for articles published in English and Spanish from January 2015 to July 2021. The search strategy consisted of nine research questions that were defined using the PICO (P, patient; I, intervention; C, comparator; O, outcome) structure. Systematic reviews, clinical trials, post hoc studies, clinical practice guidelines, and observational studies reporting data on the management of T2 asthma and CRSwNP were included. In total, 32 publications were selected and assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists [30].

Based on the studies retrieved and clinicians’ expertise, controversial issues and unmet needs were identified by the scientific committee. A preliminary draft of the questionnaire was developed and subsequently discussed in a virtual meeting. The scientific committee drew conclusions and suggested several recommendations to formulate the statements that could be proposed to the panel. Finally, the Delphi questionnaire was prepared with 32 statements (52 items) that were grouped into three sections: (1) identification of phenotypes (8 statements); (2) treatment (16 statements); and (3) follow-up (8 statements).

Consensus and data analysis

Consensus was based on the RAND Healthcare Corporation and University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method [31]. In the first round, participants were asked to rate each statement on a 9-point Likert scale to assess their agreement or disagreement (each statement scored from 1 [totally disagree] to 9 (totally agree) [32]. In the second round, participants re-evaluated the statements for which consensus was not reached after the first round, taking into account their individual vote as well as the median of the panel. Between the two rounds, the scientific committee reviewed controversial items and experts’ comments.Statements were classified as inappropriate, uncertain, or appropriate when a median score of 1–3, 4–6, or 7–9 was calculated, respectively. The mean absolute deviation around the median was used to measure statistical dispersion. Consensus was achieved if at least two-thirds of the panel scored within the range containing the median; otherwise, it was deemed a lack of consensus. Any item without consensus was classified as uncertain regardless of the median value, while controversy was considered when more than one third of individual scores were within the range opposite the one containing the median. Data were analyzed using Excel and the R statistics package version 4.0.1.

Results

In total, 30 out of the 33 experts participated in both consultation rounds of the Delphi questionnaire (response rate 90.9%) over a two-month period. Participants had a median (range) of 20 (10–35) years of medical expertise and were from nine different Autonomous Communities in Spain (Additional file 1: Table S1). Among the 52 items comprising the questionnaire, consensus on appropriateness was reached in 30 items (57.7%) in the first round. The remaining 22 items were re-assessed in a second round, after which consensus was reached for 13 additional items. As a result of both rounds, agreement on appropriateness was achieved in 43 of 52 items (82.7%) and none of the items were considered inappropriate.

Identification of phenotypes

The panel strongly agreed that biomarkers associated with T2 inflammation in patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP are peripheral blood and tissue eosinophil count, FeNO, and specific and serum total IgE (median [M]: 8–9) (Table 1). While appropriate, controversy was found among ENT specialists regarding biomarker cut-off values (Additional file 1: Table S2). Experts considered it appropriate to phenotype T2 inflammation using a combination of different biomarkers to improve diagnostic performance (M: 9), despite being insufficient to predict treatment success (M: 8). Of note, the high variability of peripheral blood or tissue eosinophilia was considered a limitation for its usefulness in T2 phenotyping (M: 8).

Consensus was achieved on the association of some biomarkers with increased severity in patients with T2 asthma and CRSwNP, such as elevated FeNO (M: 7) and peripheral blood (M: 8) and tissue eosinophil count (M: 9). In contrast, the association of elevated total serum IgE (M: 8) and positive specific IgE (skin or blood) (M: 5) with severity was overall controversial for all specialties. Experts agreed on the association of tissue eosinophil count with recurrence after ESS (M: 8), whereas controversy was observed for peripheral blood eosinophil count for allergists and ENT specialists. The panel strongly agreed that loss of smell should be assessed in patients with severe asthma and/or CRSwNP (M: 9).

Table 1 Results of the Delphi survey Section 1: identification of phenotypes
Full size table

Treatment

Most experts agreed on the need to evaluate a combination of parameters, including clinical variables and biomarkers, to predict treatment response in patients with severe T2 asthma and CRSwNP (M: 9) (Table 2). They considered that multimorbidity of several respiratory diseases with T2 inflammation is a risk factor for severity and failure of medical or surgical treatment (M: 9). Consensus was achieved on several statements related to the indication for biologics in patients with UAD, such as the use of anti-IL-4/IL-13 or anti-IgE regardless of the presence of allergy (M: 8), although the level of agreement was lower among allergists. Experts agreed that biologics should be prescribed for one disease or the other whenever the criteria are met (M: 8), and should take into account clinical markers of loss of smell and quality of life (M: 9). Moreover, they considered that a history of previous ESS or its contraindication in patients with severe T2 CRSwNP and asthma supports the prescription of biologics (M: 8.5). In patients undergoing ESS, initiation of biologics should not be delayed in the absence of response to appropriate medical-surgical treatment (M: 8). However, the use of biologics before ESS was uncertain and controversial across specialties (Additional file 1: Table S2).

The panel strongly agreed that calculation of the cumulative annual SCS dose should consider the doses administered for both asthma and CRSwNP (M: 9). Regarding the need for short courses of SCS in patients receiving biologics who have not achieved disease control, the experts indicated that it should not be considered as treatment failure if response criteria for the biologics are met (M: 7). The panel agreed that the combination of two biologics with different mechanisms of action may be necessary in patients with UAD who have not achieved symptom control after medical-surgical treatment and use of a biologic (M: 8). However, they also stated that combining biologics is not advisable due to cost-effectiveness and/or lack of safety evidence (M: 8). Accordingly, most experts recommended switching to biologics with a different mechanism of action, or performing ESS if applicable, in UAD patients who do not respond to biologics, even when an improvement in the variables associated with asthma or CRSwNP is observed (M: 7–9). The experts also recommended extending maintenance treatment for at least 6 months before considering withdrawal or switching in UAD patients who show an initial good response (M: 8.5).

Table 2 Results of the Delphi survey Section 2: treatment
Full size table

Follow-up

The panel strongly agreed on biomarkers associated with T2 inflammation that are useful for the follow-up of patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP treated with biologics, including peripheral blood and tissue eosinophil count (M: 8), and FeNO (M: 8), whereas controversy was observed for serum total IgE (M: 7.5) and specific IgE (M: 5) (Table 3). Allergists showed uncertainty on the usefulness of both biomarkers and ENT specialists considered the association with specific IgE as inappropriate (Additional file 1: Table S2). Similar results were retrieved for recommended biomarkers to monitor the response to biologics. Accordingly, experts considered that biomarkers and clinical criteria used when prescribing biologics should be used to monitor the response, if possible (M: 8). In patients with T2 severe asthma and CRSwNP on biologics, the presence of elevated FeNO was considered by the panelists to increase the risk of developing exacerbations (M: 7). In contrast, tissue eosinophil count, anosmia, and quality of life (M: 8) were considered to be associated with a lack of response to ESS, and thus with recurrence of CRSwNP, while the role of peripheral blood eosinophil count was controversial for allergists and ENT specialists. Panelists strongly agreed that, to ensure proper management of these UAD patients, any healthcare professional involved should be conversant with the use of biomarkers and clinical markers for both diseases (M: 9). The minimum and optimal time for assessing response to biologics was agreed at 6 (M: 9) and 12 (M: 8) months, respectively.

Table 3 Results of the Delphi survey Section 3: follow-up
Full size table

Discussion

Given the paucity of scientific evidence supporting certain therapeutic strategies for UAD in clinical practice, a multidisciplinary Delphi survey was conducted to elicit expert-based recommendations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Delphi study on the management of patients with multimorbid T2 asthma and CRSwNP from a UAD perspective. Outcomes of the questionnaire revealed an overall 83% rate of consensus among allergists, pulmonologists, and ENT specialists, most of whom agreed on the appropriateness of the proposed items. Among these, experts valued the usefulness of several biomarkers to assess and monitor T2 inflammation, as well as their association with disease severity, response to biologics, or recurrence after ESS. Treatment recommendations were made on the prescription of biologics, concomitant treatment with SCS, and combining or switching to other biologics with a different mechanism of action, considering a number of UAD clinical scenarios.

Identification of phenotypes

The identification of phenotypes and underlying endotypes is currently the best approach to define UAD and predict the patient’s prognosis [1, 4, 5, 33]. While the expert panel agreed on the association of several biomarkers with T2 inflammation, it should be noted that, for some biomarkers (i.e., elevated FeNO and total serum IgE), the available evidence mostly reports data in asthma patients [9, 21, 34]. Nevertheless, as described in a recent real-world study, T2 inflammation can be effectively evaluated in patients with asthma and CRSwNP using FeNO, blood eosinophil count, and total serum IgE [35]. In contrast, controversy was observed among the experts regarding the cut-off values for T2 biomarkers, as these are defined for asthma or CRSwNP in clinical practice guidelines [12, 13]. Therefore, specific studies to determine cut-off values in UAD patients are warranted [36].

The association of disease severity with elevated serum total IgE in UAD patients was controversial, likely due to a lack of scientific evidence. In fact, a study performed in patients with allergic asthma showed high and variable IgE levels [37]. Interestingly, elevated FeNO has been associated with disease severity in asthma patients [38, 39], but also in multimorbid UAD patients [40]. Most panelists expressed uncertainty on the association of positive specific IgE with UAD severity, as expected considering that this biomarker is commonly related to allergic asthma [41].

Although the association of peripheral blood eosinophil count and recurrence after ESS was overall controversial, allergists considered this statement uncertain while pulmonologists and ENT specialists considered it appropriate. In this regard, a recent study has shown that blood eosinophil count combined with asthma history could predict CRSwNP recurrence [42]. Moreover, high tissue eosinophilia has shown good diagnostic accuracy for predicting the likelihood of recurrence of CRSwNP [43].

Treatment

Given the common pathological characteristics underlying both asthma and CRSwNP, as well as the increased disease burden in multimorbid patients, integral treatment of T2 inflammation in UAD is warranted [4, 33]. While the anti-IgE biologic omalizumab has been traditionally prescribed for allergic asthma, it is currently also indicated as an add-on therapy with intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of severe CRSwNP. The anti-IL-4/IL-13 agent dupilumab is indicated for the treatment of both severe asthma and CRSwNP. The expert panel consistently considered the use of anti-IL-4/IL-13 or anti-IgE appropriate overall, regardless of the presence of allergy in UAD patients.

The use of biologics before ESS, in the context of severe uncontrolled asthma and CRSwNP, was uncertain and controversial due to the scant evidence [7]. Indeed, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) report data on patients who received biologics either before or after ESS, such as dupilumab [23], omalizumab [25], benralizumab [44], and mepolizumab [24, 45]. As such, some experts recommended ESS before biologics, and others would prescribe these in patients who had multiple interventions and/or contraindication for ESS. It should be noted that the indication for biologics in severe disease has not yet been defined [36].

Experts agreed on the appropriateness of combining two biologics in UAD patients who have not achieved disease control. However, combination of these agents remains controversial, with very limited evidence and only in asthma patients [46]. Since this approach has not been widely explored in RCTs, it is not considered in the indication for currently approved biologics. Although the future of biologics might be focused on different therapeutic targets simultaneously, the high cost of combined therapy and the lack of safety outcomes from real-world evidence could hinder its implementation in clinical practice. Switching to a biologic agent with a different mechanism of action could be a more feasible approach in UAD patients who do not respond to a certain biologic. However, this would depend on the level of improvement and/or worsening in the variables associated with asthma and CRSwNP. To date, the effectiveness of switching between biologics has been only reported in severe asthma patients [47,48,49].

Follow-up

For the follow-up of UAD patients receiving biologics, experts agreed on the appropriateness of T2 biomarkers such as peripheral blood and tissue eosinophil count, in line with those established for the indication of the treatment [12, 13, 50]. In contrast, the use of total serum IgE was controversial because this biomarker has not been proven to be associated with a response to biologics. While dupilumab and omalizumab have been shown to reduce circulating IgE [36], its serum level can vary during treatment. The expert panel considered that the best approach would be a combination of biomarkers to ensure more comprehensive follow-up of UAD patients. Since biomarkers predicting response to biologics in CRSwNP have not yet been described in the literature, the need for further research was stressed.

FeNO has been associated with asthma exacerbations and lung function [39]. In patients with asthma and CRSwNP treated with certain biologics such as dupilumab or tezepelumab, FeNO has been identified as a biomarker that can predict the response to therapy [20, 22]. While the use of tissue eosinophil count as a biomarker for ESS is broadly agreed, the role of peripheral blood eosinophil count in this context remains controversial. Plaza et al. evaluated the impact of bilateral functional ESS, and found a trend towards a lower serum eosinophil count in patients with asthma and severe CRSwNP [16]. Furthermore, several studies have described the impact of ESS in UAD patients, not only related to the improvement in CRSwNP outcomes, but also on respiratory function and asthma control [17, 18, 51].

Among the clinical markers that the expert panel considered appropriate to determine a lack of response to ESS, anosmia is not currently used in clinical practice. Accordingly, although there was overall agreement, differences were observed among specialties. Recent studies have demonstrated poor mid- to long-term efficacy of ESS in the loss of smell, apart from the effect of initial surgeries [52, 53]. On the other hand, a consensus was reached on the appropriateness of minimal and optimal time for assessing response to biologics, in line with a recent real-world study [15].

This study is subject to certain limitations, which are mainly related to the Delphi methodology. To minimize imposed preconceptions and ensure impartiality in the design of the questionnaire, all statements were thoroughly reviewed and subsequently agreed upon by the scientific committee members. It is worth noting that the experts’ evaluation may be affected by personal interpretation of the statements and/or their own clinical expertise. Considering that there might be a potential bias in the selection of the expert panel, a large number of specialists from different Autonomous Communities in Spain were included.

Conclusion

In summary, this Delphi survey provides expert-based recommendations that may assist healthcare professionals involved in the management of multimorbid T2 asthma and CRSwNP patients, and guide clinical decision-making from the UAD perspective. Although the level of consensus among specialists constituting the expert panel was overall high, some controversies came to light. Therefore, we emphasize the need for specific clinical trials and real-world studies considering the single-entity UAD to further support consensus recommendations, but also to address the unmet needs identified herein. Future research will help to ascertain the best management algorithm and therapeutic strategies according to the patient profile and history, and eventually enable evidence-based implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Availability of data and materials

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Abbreviations

CRSwNP:

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

ENT:

Otolaryngologists

ESS:

Endoscopic sinus surgery

FeNO:

Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide

SCS:

Systemic corticosteroids

T2:

Type 2

UAD:

United airways disease

References

  1. Kanda A, Kobayashi Y, Asako M, Tomoda K, Kawauchi H, Iwai H. Regulation of interaction between the upper and lower airways in united airway disease. Med Sci (Basel). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci7020027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yii ACA, Tay T-R, Choo XN, Koh MSY, Tee AKH, Wang D-Y. Precision medicine in united airways disease: a “treatable traits” approach. Allergy. 2018;73:1964–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13496.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Humbert M, Bousquet J, Bachert C, Palomares O, Pfister P, Kottakis I, et al. IgE-mediated multimorbidities in allergic asthma and the potential for omalizumab therapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7:1418–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2019.02.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Laidlaw TM, Mullol J, Woessner KM, Amin N, Mannent LP. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:1133–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.063.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lin DC, Chandra RK, Tan BK, Zirkle W, Conley DB, Grammer LC, et al. Association between severity of asthma and degree of chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:205–8. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rial MJ, Álvarez-Puebla MJ, Arismendi E, Caballero ML, Cañas JA, Cruz MJ, et al. Clinical and inflammatory characteristics of patients with asthma in the spanish MEGA project cohort. Clin Transl Allergy. 2021;11:e12001. https://doi.org/10.1002/clt2.12001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fokkens WJ, Lund V, Bachert C, Mullol J, Bjermer L, Bousquet J, et al. EUFOREA consensus on biologics for CRSwNP with or without asthma. Allergy. 2019;74:2312–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13875.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pérez de Llano L, Martínez-Moragón E, Plaza Moral V, Trisan Alonso A, Sánchez CA, Callejas FJ, et al. Unmet therapeutic goals and potential treatable traits in a population of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in Spain. ENEAS study. Respir Med. 2019;151:49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2019.03.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diamant Z, Sven-Erik Dahlén SE, Walter Canonica G. Type 2 inflammation and the evolving profile of uncontrolled persistent asthma. Eur Med J. 2018;3:24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ahern S. Inflammation and endotyping in chronic Rhinosinusitis-A paradigm shift. Med (Kaunas). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55040095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dunican EM, Fahy JV. The role of type 2 inflammation in the pathogenesis of asthma exacerbations. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(Suppl 2):144-S49. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201506-377AW.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, et al. European position paper on Rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58:1–464. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin20.600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. GINA. Guide for health professionals: asthma management and prevention for adults and children older than 5 years. Global Initiative for Asthma; 2021.

  14. Morse CJ, Miller C, Senior B. Management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in the era of biologics. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:873–82. https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s258438.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mümmler C, Dünzelmann K, Kneidinger N, Barnikel M, Munker D, Gröger M, et al. Real-life effectiveness of biological therapies on symptoms in severe asthma with comorbid CRSwNP. Clin Transl Allergy. 2021;11:e12049. https://doi.org/10.1002/clt2.12049.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Plaza V, del Cuvillo A, Soto-Retes L, Gras JR, Cisneros C, Sánchez-Cuellar S, et al. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis in Asthma Patients: impact on bronchial inflammation. Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed). 2020;56:403–05. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2019.12.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamada K, Oishi K, Chikumoto A, Murakawa K, Ohteru Y, Matsuda K, et al. Impact of sinus surgery on type 2 airway and systemic inflammation in asthma. J Asthma. 2021;58:750–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2020.1729380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Terada T, Inui T, Moriyama K, Noro K, Kikuoka Y, Omura S, et al. Effects of endoscopic sinus surgery for eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis on respiratory functions and FeNO production in the lower respiratory tract. Ear Nose Throat J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613211032006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Plaza V, Alobid I, Alvarez C, Blanco M, Ferreira J, García G, et al. Spanish asthma management guidelines (GEMA) VERSION 5.1. highlights and controversies. Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed). 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2021.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bourdin A, Papi AA, Corren J, Virchow JC, Rice MS, Deniz Y, et al. Dupilumab is effective in type 2-high asthma patients receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids at baseline. Allergy. 2021;76:269–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buhl R, Korn S, Menzies-Gow A, Aubier M, Chapman KR, Canonica GW, et al. Prospective, single-arm, longitudinal study of biomarkers in real-world patients with severe asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8:2630-39e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2020.03.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Emson C, Corren J, Salapa K, Hellqvist A, Parnes JR, Colice G. Efficacy of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with and without nasal polyposis: a post hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY study. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:91–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s288260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, Hellings PW, Amin N, Lee SE, 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;394:1638–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31881-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Han JK, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Desrosiers M, Wagenmann M, Lee SE, et al. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:1141–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00097-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gevaert P, Omachi TA, Corren J, Mullol J, Han J, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bourdin A, Adcock I, Berger P, Bonniaud P, Chanson P, Chenivesse C, et al. How can we minimise the use of regular oral corticosteroids in asthma? Eur Respir Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0085-2019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kobayashi Y, Kanda A, Bui DV, Yun Y, Nguyen LM, Chu HH, et al. Omalizumab restores response to corticosteroids in patients with eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis and severe asthma. Biomedicines. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9070787.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Desrosiers M, Mannent LP, Amin N, Canonica GW, Hellings PW, Gevaert P, et al. Dupilumab reduces systemic corticosteroid use and sinonasal surgery rate in CRSwNP. Rhinology. 2021;59:301–11. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin20.415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:401–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mullol J, Maldonado M, Castillo JA, Miguel-Blanco C, Dávila I, Domínguez-Ortega J, et al. Management of united airway disease focused on patients with asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2022.04.039.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Fitch K, Bernstein Sj AM, Col. The rand/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. library of congress cataloging-in-publication Data. 2001.

  32. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Price D, Menzies-Gow A, Bachert C, Canonica GW, Kocks J, Khan AH, et al. Association between a type 2 inflammatory disease burden score and outcomes among patients with asthma. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:1173–83. https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s321212.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Narendra D, Blixt J, Hanania NA. Immunological biomarkers in severe asthma. Semin Immunol. 2019;46:101332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2019.101332.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ricciardolo FLM, Levra S, Sprio AE, Bertolini F, Carriero V, Gallo F, et al. A real-world assessment of asthma with chronic rhinosinusitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;125:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2020.03.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. De Corso E, Bellocchi G, De Benedetto M, Lombardo N, Macchi A, Malvezzi L, et al. Biologics for severe uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a change management approach. consensus of the joint committee of Italian society of otorhinolaryngology on biologics in rhinology. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2021. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100x-n1614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Davila I, Valero A, Entrenas LM, Valveny N. Relationship between serum total IgE and disease severity in patients with allergic asthma in Spain. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2015;25:120–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chung KF. Increasing utility of FeNO as a biomarker of type-2 inflammation in severe asthma. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:1083–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00170-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Menzies-Gow A, Mansur AH, Brightling CE. Clinical utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in severe asthma management. Eur Respir J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01633-2019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan R, Lipworth B. Impact of nasal polyps on endotype and phenotype in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2021.06.007. 127:548 – 52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Matucci A, Vultaggio A, Maggi E, Kasujee I. Is IgE or eosinophils the key player in allergic asthma pathogenesis? Are we asking the right question? Respir Res. 2018;19:113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-018-0813-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang X, Meng Y, Lou H, Wang K, Wang C, Zhang L. Blood eosinophil count combined with asthma history could predict chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp recurrence. Acta Otolaryngol. 2021;141:279–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2020.1844288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McHugh T, Snidvongs K, Xie M, Banglawala S, Sommer D. High tissue eosinophilia as a marker to predict recurrence for eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8:1421–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers MY, Gevaert P, Heffler E, Hopkins C, et al. Efficacy and safety of benralizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2021.08.030.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bachert C, Sousa AR, Lund VJ, Scadding GK, Gevaert P, Nasser S, et al. Reduced need for surgery in severe nasal polyposis with mepolizumab: randomized trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;140:1024–31e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2017.05.044.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ortega G, Tongchinsub P, Carr T. Combination biologic therapy for severe persistent asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2019.06.013. 123:309 – 11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Papaioannou AI, Fouka E, Papakosta D, Papiris S, Loukides S. Switching between biologics in severe asthma patients. when the first choice is not proven to be the best. Clin Exp Allergy. 2021;51:221–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.13809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Spadaro G, Lagnese G, Punziano A, Poto R, Varricchi G, Detoraki A. The immunology of switching biologics in severe eosinophilic asthma patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:3528–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.05.044.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Numata T, Araya J, Miyagawa H, Okuda K, Fujita Y, Utsumi H, et al. Effectiveness of switching biologics for severe asthma patients in Japan: a single-center retrospective study. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:609–18. https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s311975.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Bachert C, Han JK, Wagenmann M, Hosemann W, Lee SE, Backer V, et al. EUFOREA expert board meeting on uncontrolled severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and biologics: definitions and management. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;147:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.11.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Vashishta R, Soler ZM, Nguyen SA, Schlosser RJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis of asthma outcomes following endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3:788–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Haxel BR. Recovery of olfaction after sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: a review. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:1053–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mullol J, Mariño-Sánchez F, Valls M, Alobid I, Marin C. The sense of smell in chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145:773–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.01.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Celia Miguel-Blanco (Medical Science Consulting; Valencia, Spain) for technical and medical writing support, which was funded by Sanofi. The authors acknowledge the 30 panelists for participating in the survey: J.M. Olaguibel, A. Trisán, L.M. Entrenas, G. Martínez Capoccioni, J. Maza Solano, A. García Piñero, J.C. Miralles, J.A. Carretero, M. Gandolfo Cano, J.R. Gras, M. Fernández Nieto, J.M. Villacampa Aubá, A. Gómez Bastero, R. Cárdenas, A. Crespo, L. Soto, I. García Moguel, R. García, F. Álvarez, J. González Barcala, M. Armengot Carceller, X. González Compte, J. Gregorio Soto, J. Delgado, A. Romero, N. Mata Castro, C. Langdon Montero, D. Antolín, S. Domínguez Sosa, I. Bobolea.

Funding

This work was funded by Sanofi. Editorial assistance was provided by Celia Miguel-Blanco (Medical Science Consulting; Valencia, Spain). The authors were not compensated for writing the manuscript. The sponsor was not involved in the protocol design, data analysis, or manuscript writing.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Marina Blanco-Aparicio and Javier Domínguez-Ortega have contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

    Marina Blanco-Aparicio & Javier Domínguez-Ortega

  2. Department of Allergy, La Paz University Hospital, Institute for Health Research (IdiPAZ), CIBER of Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain

    Santiago Quirce

  3. Department of Pulmonology, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Health Research Institute (IP), Madrid, Spain

    Carolina Cisneros

  4. Department of Allergy, Hospital Clínico-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain

    Carlos Colás

  5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain

    Francisco Casas

  6. Rhinology & Asthma Unit, ENT Department, Hospital Universitario de Jerez, Cádiz, Spain

    Alfonso del Cuvillo

  7. Rhinology Unit & Smell Clinic, ENT Department, CIBERES, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, C/ Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain

    Isam Alobid & Joaquim Mullol

Authors
  1. Marina Blanco-Aparicio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Domínguez-Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolina Cisneros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carlos Colás
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francisco Casas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alfonso del Cuvillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isam Alobid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Santiago Quirce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Joaquim Mullol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design, and to material preparation and data collection, which were critically reviewed for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work have been appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquim Mullol.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MBA has received honoraria for lectures, courses, participation in monographs and standards, or scientific advice from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Esteve, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Chiesi, and TEVA. JDO has received funding for research and/or honoraria for consultancy and conferences from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Bial, Novartis, Sanofi, and TEVA; and speaker fees from ALK, LETI Pharma, and Mundipharma. CCis has received financial aid from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Mundipharma, GSK, Pfizer, Menarini, and Sanofi for advisory services, papers, research studies, attendance at congresses or training courses. CCol has received honoraria for lectures, courses, participation in monographs and standards or scientific advice from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis, Viatris and Chiesi. FCM has received honoraria for lectures, courses, participation in monographs and standards or scientific advice from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and TEVA. AC reports grants and personal fees from MYLAN, FAES Pharma, Novartis, Allakos, and Sanofi; personal fees from ALK, GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, and TEVA, outside the submitted work. IA has received honoraria for consultancy and conferences from Viatris, Sanofi, GSK, MSD, Menarini, GAES, Aural, and Novartis. SQ has received honoraria for consultancy and conferences from AstraZeneca, GSK and Sanofi, and speaker fees from Chiesi, Mundipharma, Novartis, and TEVA. JM is a member of national or international advisory boards and has received speaker fees or funding for clinical trials and research projects from Allakos, AstraZeneca, GSK, Menarini, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, Mylan-MEDA Pharma (Viatris), Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Uriach Group.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Characteristics of the study expert participants.Table S2. Data on controversial items in the Delphi survey by specialty.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blanco-Aparicio, M., Domínguez-Ortega, J., Cisneros, C. et al. Consensus on the management of united airways disease with type 2 inflammation: a multidisciplinary Delphi study. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 19, 34 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-023-00780-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-023-00780-9

Keywords

Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology

ISSN: 1710-1492

Contact us