Novel therapies such as type 2 targeting biologics are emerging treatment options for patients with chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases, fulfilling the needs of severely uncontrolled patients. The majority of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and over half of patients with asthma show a type 2 inflammatory signature in sinonasal mucosa and/or lungs. Importantly, both chronic respiratory diseases are frequent comorbidities, ensuring alleviation of both upper and lower airway pathology by systemic biological therapy. Type 2‐targeting biologics such as anti‐IgE, anti‐IL4Rα, anti‐IL5, and anti‐IL5Rα have entered the market for selected pheno/endotypes of asthma patients and may soon also become available for CRSwNP patients. Given the high prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases and the high cost associated with biologics, patient selection is crucial in order to implement such therapies into chronic respiratory disease care pathways.The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) organized a multidisciplinary Expert Board Meeting to discuss the positioning of biologics into the care pathways for CRSwNP patients with and without comorbid asthma.

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is an important tool to diagnose allergic rhinitis. In daily clinical routine, experimentally, or when measuring therapeutic success clinically, nasal allergen challenge is fundamental. It is further one of the key diagnostic tools when initiating specific allergen immunotherapy. So far, national recommendations offered guidance on its execution; however, international divergence left many questions unanswered. These differences in the literature caused EAACI to initiate a task force to answer unmet needs and find a consensus in executing nasal allergen challenge. On the basis of a systematic review containing nasal allergen challenges of the past years, task force members reviewed evidence, discussed open issues, and studied variations of several subjective and objective assessment parameters to propose a standardized way of a nasal allergen challenge procedure in clinical practice. Besides an update on indications, contraindications, and preparations for the test procedure, main recommendations are a bilaterally challenge with standardized allergens, with a spray device offering 0.1 mL per nostril. A systematic catalogue for positivity criteria is given for the variety of established subjective and objective assessment methods as well as a schedule for the challenge procedure. The task force recommends a unified protocol for NAC for daily clinical practice, aiming at eliminating the previous difficulty of comparing NAC results due to unmet needs.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a public health problem that has a significant socio-economic impact. Moreover, the complexity of this disease due to its heterogeneous nature based on the underlying pathophysiology - leading to different disease variants - further complicates our understanding and directions for the most appropriate targeted treatment strategies. Several International/national guidelines/position papers and/or consensus documents are available that present the current knowledge and treatment strategies for CRS. Yet there are many challenges to the management of CRS especially in the case of the more severe and refractory forms of disease. Therefore, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (iCAALL), a collaboration between EAACI, AAAAI, ACAAI, and WAO, has decided to propose an International Consensus (ICON) on Chronic Rhinosinusitis. The purpose of this ICON on CRS is to highlight the key common messages from the existing guidelines, the differences in recommendations as well as the gaps in our current knowledge of CRS, thus providing a concise reference. In this document we discuss the definition of the disease, its relevance, pharmacoeconomics, pathophysiology, phenotypes and endotypes, genetics and risk factors, natural history and co-morbidities as well as clinical manifestations and treatment options in both adults and children comprising pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions and more recent biological approaches. Finally, we have also highlighted the unmet needs that wait to be addressed through future research.

Objectives To investigate olfaction in general population, prevalence of olfactory dysfunction and related risk factors. Design Cross-sectional population-based survey, distributing four microencapsulated odorants (rose, banana, musk and gas) and two self-administered questionnaires (odour description; epidemiology/health status). Setting The survey was distributed to general population through a bilingual (Catalan, Spanish) newspaper in Catalonia (Spain), on December 2003. Participants Newspaper readers of all ages and gender; 9348 surveys were analysed from the 10 783 returned. Main outcome measures Characteristics of surveyed population, olfaction by age and gender, smell self-perception and smell impairment risk factors. Terms normosmia, hyposmia and anosmia were used when participants detected, recognised or identified all four, one to three or none of the odours, respectively. Results Survey profile was a 43-year-old woman with medium–high educational level, living in a city. Olfaction was considered normal in 80.6% (detection), 56% (recognition/memory) and 50.7% (identification). Prevalence of smell dysfunction was 19.4% for detection (0.3% anosmia, 19.1% hyposmia), 43.5% for recognition (0.2% anosmia, 43.3% hyposmia) and 48.8% for identification (0.8% anosmia, 48% hyposmia). Olfaction was worse (p<0.0001) in men than in women through all ages. There was a significant age-related smell detection decline however smell recognition and identification increased up to fourth decade and declined after the sixth decade of life. Risk factors for anosmia were: male gender, loss of smell history and poor olfactory self-perception for detection; low educational level, poor self-perception and pregnancy for recognition; and older age, poor self-perception and history of head trauma and loss of smell for identification. Smoking and exposure to noxious substances were mild protective factors for smell recognition. Conclusions Sense of smell in women is better than in men suggesting a learning process during life with deterioration in older ages. Poor self-perception, history of smell loss, head trauma and pregnancy are potential risk factors for olfactory disorders.