Baseline Blood Eosinophil Count for Identifying Superior Responders to Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
{"title":"Baseline Blood Eosinophil Count for Identifying Superior Responders to Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yang Zheng, Wei Liu, Yujuan Yang, Haoran Lu, Huikang Wang, Zhen Liu, Congxian Lu, Jianbo Fu, Yingxue Li, Xicheng Song, Yu Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s12016-025-09130-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current guidelines recommend the presence of type 2 inflammation as one of the indications for biologic therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Although blood eosinophil (Eos) levels are commonly used as a biomarker for type 2 inflammation, their value in predicting differential responses to biologic treatment has not been verified by high-quality evidence. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) databases, and hand-searched Clinicaltrials.gov for all RCTs that used biologic therapies for CRSwNP. Primary outcomes included the nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion score (NCS), a 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) score, and loss of smell (Los) score. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251063136). This meta-analysis included 9 studies comprising 10 RCTs (n = 2,551), all of which were judged to be at a high risk of selection bias. The results showed that when compared with placebo treatment, biologic therapy significantly improved all outcome measures, including the NPS, NCS, SNOT-22 score, and LoS score, —regardless of baseline Eos levels. However, inter-subgroup comparisons clearly showed that both the Eos ≥ 150 cells/µL and Eos ≥ 300 cells/µL groups had significantly greater improvements in their NPS and NCS when compared with the Eos < 150 cells/µL group (p < 0.05). In contrast, improvements in the SNOT-22 scores and LoS scores were comparable across all subgroups, with no statistically significant differences observed. An exploratory analysis suggested that at the Eos ≥ 300 cells/µL threshold, anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies may be superior to anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies for improving the NPS and NCS (p < 0.05). Although biologics demonstrate efficacy in the overall CRSwNP population, a baseline blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/µL pinpoints the patient subgroup with a superior response.</p>","PeriodicalId":10423,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology","volume":"69 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-025-09130-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend the presence of type 2 inflammation as one of the indications for biologic therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Although blood eosinophil (Eos) levels are commonly used as a biomarker for type 2 inflammation, their value in predicting differential responses to biologic treatment has not been verified by high-quality evidence. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) databases, and hand-searched Clinicaltrials.gov for all RCTs that used biologic therapies for CRSwNP. Primary outcomes included the nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion score (NCS), a 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) score, and loss of smell (Los) score. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251063136). This meta-analysis included 9 studies comprising 10 RCTs (n = 2,551), all of which were judged to be at a high risk of selection bias. The results showed that when compared with placebo treatment, biologic therapy significantly improved all outcome measures, including the NPS, NCS, SNOT-22 score, and LoS score, —regardless of baseline Eos levels. However, inter-subgroup comparisons clearly showed that both the Eos ≥ 150 cells/µL and Eos ≥ 300 cells/µL groups had significantly greater improvements in their NPS and NCS when compared with the Eos < 150 cells/µL group (p < 0.05). In contrast, improvements in the SNOT-22 scores and LoS scores were comparable across all subgroups, with no statistically significant differences observed. An exploratory analysis suggested that at the Eos ≥ 300 cells/µL threshold, anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies may be superior to anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies for improving the NPS and NCS (p < 0.05). Although biologics demonstrate efficacy in the overall CRSwNP population, a baseline blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/µL pinpoints the patient subgroup with a superior response.
目前的指南推荐2型炎症作为慢性鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉(CRSwNP)生物治疗的适应症之一。虽然血液嗜酸性粒细胞(Eos)水平通常被用作2型炎症的生物标志物,但其在预测生物治疗差异反应方面的价值尚未得到高质量证据的验证。我们检索了PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)数据库,并手动检索了Clinicaltrials.gov中所有使用生物疗法治疗CRSwNP的随机对照试验。主要结局包括鼻息肉评分(NPS)、鼻塞评分(NCS)、22项鼻-鼻结局测试(SNOT-22)评分和嗅觉丧失评分(Los)。本研究已在普洛斯彼罗注册(CRD420251063136)。本荟萃分析纳入9项研究,包括10项rct (n = 2551),所有研究均被认为存在高选择偏倚风险。结果显示,与安慰剂治疗相比,无论基线Eos水平如何,生物治疗显著改善了所有结局指标,包括NPS、NCS、SNOT-22评分和LoS评分。然而,亚组间比较清楚地显示,Eos≥150 cells/µL组和Eos≥300 cells/µL组的NPS和NCS比Eos组有显著更大的改善
期刊介绍:
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology is a scholarly journal that focuses on the advancement of clinical management in allergic and immunologic diseases. The journal publishes both scholarly reviews and experimental papers that address the current state of managing these diseases, placing new data into perspective. Each issue of the journal is dedicated to a specific theme of critical importance to allergists and immunologists, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter for a wide readership.
The journal is particularly helpful in explaining how novel data impacts clinical management, along with advancements such as standardized protocols for allergy skin testing and challenge procedures, as well as improved understanding of cell biology. Ultimately, the journal aims to contribute to the improvement of care and management for patients with immune-mediated diseases.