鼻腔吸气流量峰值评估息肉大小和 SYNAPSE 反应

Amber U. Luong MD, PhD , Joshua M. Levy MD, MPH, MSc , Ludger Klimek MD, PhD , Richard J. Harvey MD , Jared Silver MD, PhD , Steven G. Smith PhD , Abby Fuller MSc , Robert Chan MD , Peter W. Hellings MD, PhD
{"title":"鼻腔吸气流量峰值评估息肉大小和 SYNAPSE 反应","authors":"Amber U. Luong MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Joshua M. Levy MD, MPH, MSc ,&nbsp;Ludger Klimek MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Richard J. Harvey MD ,&nbsp;Jared Silver MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Steven G. Smith PhD ,&nbsp;Abby Fuller MSc ,&nbsp;Robert Chan MD ,&nbsp;Peter W. Hellings MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab plus standard of care reduced total endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS) versus that with placebo in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Our aim was to investigate relationships between NPS and (1) peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and (2) patient-reported outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this <em>post hoc</em> analysis, patients randomized 1:1 received mepolizumab, 100 mg, or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks (plus standard of care). Changes from baseline in PNIF (week 52), visual analog scale scores (overall symptoms, nasal obstruction, and loss of smell [weeks 49-52]), and total 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score (week 52) were assessed in patients with or without improvements in NPS (improvement of ≥1 point) or without (improvement of &lt;1 point or worsening).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients with improvements in NPS had greater improvements in PNIF (a median of 50 L per minute [interquartile range (IQR) = 10.5-87.5] with mepolizumab vs a median of 40 L per minute [IQR = 0-85.0] with placebo) than did those patients without improvements in NPS (a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = –10.0 to 45.0] with mepolizumab vs a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = –30.0 to 30.0] with placebo). Similar results were seen for the following: change from baseline in overall symptoms (a median of –5.8 [IQR = –8.1 to –3.80] with mepolizumab and a median of –4.1 [IQR = –7.0 to –1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –1.3 [IQR = –6.3 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –0.1 [IQR = –3.4 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in nasal obstruction (a median of –5.7 [IQR = –8.2 to –3.5] with mepolizumab and a median of –4.5 [IQR = –7.3 to –1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –1.3 [IQR = –6.6 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –3.6 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in loss of smell (a median of –2.8 [IQR = –7.9 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –0.7 [IQR = –4.0 to 0.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of 0.0 [IQR = –2.4 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –0.3 to 0.0]) with placebo without improvement in NPS); and change in visual analog scale score and 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test total score (a median of –37.0 [IQR = –52.0 to –24.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –29.0 [IQR = –43.0 to –9.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –16.0 [IQR = –42.0 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –27.0 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Improvement in NPS was associated with improvements in PNIF and patient-reported outcomes irrespective of treatment. PNIF could be a useful noninvasive tool for monitoring nasal polyp size.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":75041,"journal":{"name":"The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global","volume":"3 4","pages":"Article 100327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324001231/pdfft?md5=e5262e8b6da447332de44d97623622ce&pid=1-s2.0-S2772829324001231-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peak nasal inspiratory flow assessment of polyp size and response from SYNAPSE\",\"authors\":\"Amber U. Luong MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Joshua M. Levy MD, MPH, MSc ,&nbsp;Ludger Klimek MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Richard J. Harvey MD ,&nbsp;Jared Silver MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Steven G. Smith PhD ,&nbsp;Abby Fuller MSc ,&nbsp;Robert Chan MD ,&nbsp;Peter W. Hellings MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab plus standard of care reduced total endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS) versus that with placebo in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Our aim was to investigate relationships between NPS and (1) peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and (2) patient-reported outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this <em>post hoc</em> analysis, patients randomized 1:1 received mepolizumab, 100 mg, or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks (plus standard of care). Changes from baseline in PNIF (week 52), visual analog scale scores (overall symptoms, nasal obstruction, and loss of smell [weeks 49-52]), and total 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score (week 52) were assessed in patients with or without improvements in NPS (improvement of ≥1 point) or without (improvement of &lt;1 point or worsening).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients with improvements in NPS had greater improvements in PNIF (a median of 50 L per minute [interquartile range (IQR) = 10.5-87.5] with mepolizumab vs a median of 40 L per minute [IQR = 0-85.0] with placebo) than did those patients without improvements in NPS (a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = –10.0 to 45.0] with mepolizumab vs a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = –30.0 to 30.0] with placebo). Similar results were seen for the following: change from baseline in overall symptoms (a median of –5.8 [IQR = –8.1 to –3.80] with mepolizumab and a median of –4.1 [IQR = –7.0 to –1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –1.3 [IQR = –6.3 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –0.1 [IQR = –3.4 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in nasal obstruction (a median of –5.7 [IQR = –8.2 to –3.5] with mepolizumab and a median of –4.5 [IQR = –7.3 to –1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –1.3 [IQR = –6.6 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –3.6 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in loss of smell (a median of –2.8 [IQR = –7.9 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –0.7 [IQR = –4.0 to 0.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of 0.0 [IQR = –2.4 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –0.3 to 0.0]) with placebo without improvement in NPS); and change in visual analog scale score and 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test total score (a median of –37.0 [IQR = –52.0 to –24.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –29.0 [IQR = –43.0 to –9.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –16.0 [IQR = –42.0 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –27.0 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Improvement in NPS was associated with improvements in PNIF and patient-reported outcomes irrespective of treatment. PNIF could be a useful noninvasive tool for monitoring nasal polyp size.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global\",\"volume\":\"3 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100327\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324001231/pdfft?md5=e5262e8b6da447332de44d97623622ce&pid=1-s2.0-S2772829324001231-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324001231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324001231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在III期SYNAPSE研究中,对于伴有鼻息肉的慢性鼻窦炎患者,美泊利珠单抗加标准治疗与安慰剂相比可降低内窥镜鼻息肉总评分(NPS)。我们的目的是研究 NPS 与 (1) 鼻吸气流量峰值 (PNIF) 和 (2) 患者报告结果之间的关系。方法在这项事后分析中,患者按 1:1 随机分配,每 4 周一次皮下注射 100 毫克的麦泊利单抗或安慰剂(加上标准护理)。在NPS改善或未改善(改善≥1分)或未改善(改善<1分或恶化)的患者中,评估PNIF(第52周)、视觉模拟量表评分(总体症状、鼻阻塞和嗅觉丧失[第49-52周])和22项中鼻结果测试总分(第52周)与基线相比的变化。结果与安慰剂相比,NPS改善的患者的PNIF改善幅度更大(使用mepolizumab的中位数为每分钟50升[四分位距(IQR)=10.5-87.5],而使用安慰剂的中位数为每分钟40升[IQR=0-85.中位数为每分钟 0.0 升[IQR = -10.0 至 45.0],而安慰剂的中位数为每分钟 0.0 升[IQR = -30.0 至 30.0])。以下方面也出现了类似的结果:总体症状与基线相比的变化(使用 mepolizumab 的中位数为 -5.8 [IQR = -8.1 至 -3.80],使用安慰剂的中位数为 -4.1 [IQR = -7.0 至 -1.2] ,NPS 有所改善;使用 mepolizumab 的中位数为 -1.3 [IQR = -6.3 至 0.0],使用安慰剂的中位数为 -0.1 [IQR = -3.4 至 0.0],NPS 没有改善。0],而安慰剂的中位数为-0.1[IQR = -3.4至0.0],NPS没有改善);鼻阻塞的变化(使用mepolizumab的中位数为-5.7[IQR = -8.2至-3.5],而使用安慰剂的中位数为-4.5[IQR = -7.3至-1.2],而安慰剂的中位数为-1.3[IQR = -6.6 to 0.0],安慰剂的中位数为0.0[IQR = -3.6 to 0.0],NPS没有改善);嗅觉丧失的变化(mepolizumab的中位数为-2.8[IQR = -7.9至0.0],安慰剂的中位数为-0.7[IQR = -4.0至0.0],NPS有所改善;与之相比,甲泼尼单抗的中位数为0.0[IQR = -2.4至0.0],安慰剂的中位数为0.0[IQR=-0.3至0.0]),安慰剂则无改善);以及视觉模拟量表评分和22项鼻结果测试总分的变化(中位数为-37.0[IQR=-52.0至-24.结论无论治疗方法如何,NPS 的改善与 PNIF 和患者报告结果的改善相关。PNIF可能是监测鼻息肉大小的一种有用的无创工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Peak nasal inspiratory flow assessment of polyp size and response from SYNAPSE

Background

In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab plus standard of care reduced total endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS) versus that with placebo in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Objective

Our aim was to investigate relationships between NPS and (1) peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and (2) patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

In this post hoc analysis, patients randomized 1:1 received mepolizumab, 100 mg, or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks (plus standard of care). Changes from baseline in PNIF (week 52), visual analog scale scores (overall symptoms, nasal obstruction, and loss of smell [weeks 49-52]), and total 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score (week 52) were assessed in patients with or without improvements in NPS (improvement of ≥1 point) or without (improvement of <1 point or worsening).

Results

Patients with improvements in NPS had greater improvements in PNIF (a median of 50 L per minute [interquartile range (IQR) = 10.5-87.5] with mepolizumab vs a median of 40 L per minute [IQR = 0-85.0] with placebo) than did those patients without improvements in NPS (a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = –10.0 to 45.0] with mepolizumab vs a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = –30.0 to 30.0] with placebo). Similar results were seen for the following: change from baseline in overall symptoms (a median of –5.8 [IQR = –8.1 to –3.80] with mepolizumab and a median of –4.1 [IQR = –7.0 to –1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –1.3 [IQR = –6.3 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –0.1 [IQR = –3.4 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in nasal obstruction (a median of –5.7 [IQR = –8.2 to –3.5] with mepolizumab and a median of –4.5 [IQR = –7.3 to –1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –1.3 [IQR = –6.6 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –3.6 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in loss of smell (a median of –2.8 [IQR = –7.9 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –0.7 [IQR = –4.0 to 0.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of 0.0 [IQR = –2.4 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –0.3 to 0.0]) with placebo without improvement in NPS); and change in visual analog scale score and 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test total score (a median of –37.0 [IQR = –52.0 to –24.0] with mepolizumab and a median of –29.0 [IQR = –43.0 to –9.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of –16.0 [IQR = –42.0 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = –27.0 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS).

Conclusion

Improvement in NPS was associated with improvements in PNIF and patient-reported outcomes irrespective of treatment. PNIF could be a useful noninvasive tool for monitoring nasal polyp size.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global Immunology, Allergology and Rheumatology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
92 days
期刊最新文献
Reply Editorial board A different lens to explore health literacy skills in atopic conditions Anti–IL-4Ra therapy is superior to other biologic classes in treating allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis Investigating health care pathways for anaphylaxis: Seeing the bigger picture through linked data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1