TY - JOUR
T1 - Multidisciplinary Decision-Making—ITAlian Consensus After Two Years of Real Practice on the Management of Severe Uncontrolled CRSwNP by Biologics (ITACA Study)
AU - De, Corso E.
AU - Pipolo, C.
AU - Caminati, M.
AU - Cantone, E.
AU - Seccia, V.
AU - Cecchi, L.
AU - Nettis, E.
AU - GARZARO, Massimiliano
AU - Ottaviano, G.
AU - Gelardi, M.
AU - Cavaliere, C.
AU - Heffler, E.
AU - Pagella, F.
AU - Pasquini, E.
AU - Trimarchi, M.
AU - Gallo, S.
AU - La, Mantia I.
AU - Torretta, S.
AU - Mattavelli, D.
AU - Caruso, C.
AU - Matucci, A.
AU - Vultaggio, A.
AU - Bellocchi, G.
AU - Ciufelli, M. A.
AU - FM, P.
AU - Senna, G.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Purpose of Review: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments. Recent Findings: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. Summary: The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.
AB - Purpose of Review: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments. Recent Findings: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. Summary: The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.
KW - Biological therapy
KW - Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps
KW - Dupilumab
KW - Mepolizumab
KW - Multidisciplinary management
KW - Omalizumab
KW - Response assessment
KW - Type 2 inflammation
KW - Biological therapy
KW - Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps
KW - Dupilumab
KW - Mepolizumab
KW - Multidisciplinary management
KW - Omalizumab
KW - Response assessment
KW - Type 2 inflammation
UR - https://iris.uniupo.it/handle/11579/198110
U2 - 10.1007/s11882-024-01135-z
DO - 10.1007/s11882-024-01135-z
M3 - Article
SN - 1529-7322
VL - 24
SP - 143
EP - 154
JO - Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
JF - Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
IS - 3
ER -