ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2026
Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: The Otolaryngologist's Perspective.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of tezepelumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Rethinking Monospecific Antibody Therapy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Dual- and Multispecific Antibodies.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
- Mast cells: The forgotten players in type 2 inflammation - From nasal cytology to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and beyond.Asia Pacific allergy · 2026Review
- The Use of Biological Therapies in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Current State of Knowledge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewMonoclonal antibodies ("biologics") have increasingly been used to manage chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The aim of this manuscript was to compare biologic outcomes to traditional management of CRSwNP with endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). RECENT
findingsThere are now four approved biologics for the treatment of CRSwNP in the United States: dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and tezepelumab. Cost analysis and comparison between phase 3 clinical trial results of biologics and ESS show ESS is at least as effective as biologics in controlling symptoms with significantly less cost to the healthcare system. Recent guidelines published by the European Position paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) and the American Academy of Otolaryngology continue to support ESS in the management of CRSwNP when traditional medical therapy has failed. Biologics may be considered an option for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP that has failed comprehensive ESS. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and cost of biologics compared to ESS in CRSwNP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41518424What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.