Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is associated with significant morbidity and reduced health‐related quality of life. Findings from clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of dupilumab in CRSwNP, although real‐world evidence is still limited.Methods: This Phase IV real‐life, observational, multicenter study assessed the effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP (n = 648) over the first year of treatment. We collected data at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow‐up. We focused on nasal polyps score (NPS), symptoms, and olfactory function. We stratified outcomes by comorbidities, previous surgery, and adherence to intranasal corticosteroids, and examined the success rates based on current guidelines, as well as potential predictors of response at each timepoint.Results: We observed a significant decrease in NPS from a median value of 6 (IQR 5–6) at baseline to 1.0 (IQR 0.0–2.0) at 12 months (p < .001), and a significant decrease in Sino‐Nasal Outcomes Test‐22 (SNOT‐22) from a median score of 58 (IQR 49–70) at baseline to 11 (IQR 6–21;p < .001) at 12 months. Sniffin' Sticks scores showed a significant increase over 12 months (p < .001) compared to baseline. The results were unaffected by concomitant diseases, number of previous surgeries, and adherence to topical steroids, except for minor differences in rapidity of action. An excellent‐moderate response was observed in 96.9% of patients at 12 months based on EPOS 2020 criteria.Conclusions: Our findings from this large‐scale real‐life study support the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add‐on therapy in patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP in reducing polyp size and improving the quality of life, severity of symptoms, nasal congestion, and smell.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) represents 25–30% of all CRS cases, and in the most severe forms it is associated with a poor quality of life and a high rate of nasal polyps’ recurrence after surgery. Dupilumab has been suggested as a treatment option for severe CRSwNP. Methods: Patients with severe CRSwNP receiving dupilumab from January 2021 were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months from the first administration and were considered for this study. At baseline and at each follow-up, patients underwent nasal endoscopy and completed the Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22, a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for smell/nasal obstruction, the Nasal Congestion Score and the Asthma Control Test. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), a smell test, nasal cytology and blood eosinophilia were also evaluated. Results: Forty-seven patients were included in the study. Of these, 33 patients had a history of previous surgery (ESS) and had recurrent nasal polyps, while 14 patients were naïve to nasal surgery. Both subjective and objective parameters improved after biological treatment and were correlated with each other (p < 0.05), except for the SNOT-22 and the nasal polyp’s score. No correlations were found between nasal and blood eosinophilia. No differences were observed when comparing the post-surgical and the naïve groups. Conclusions: Dupilumab improves nasal obstruction and the sense of smell and reduces the level of local inflammation in severe CRSwNP patients in a similar way in both naïve and post-surgical patients.

Background: Local and systemic corticosteroids have long been the workhorse in management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), although there is no universally accepted modality of prescription. We carried out a survey in Italy to capture current trends in the use of topical and systemic corticosteroids in patients with CRSwNP. Methods: A survey was set up on Survey Monkey^®. Each author distributed the link to the survey in an ad hoc manner and a total of 437 participants filled out the survey. Results: Mometasone furoate (79.3%) was the most frequently prescribed, administered daily by 61.9% of participants; the remaining preferred to discontinue treatment for brief periods to reduce side effects or to modulate the therapy in mild cases. The majority believe that a short cycle of systemic steroids should be prescribed for re-exacerbation of symptoms and that the number of cycles in the previous year should be evaluated to define control of the disease even if international guidelines do not provide clear indications on this topic. A certain degree of divergence emerged from responses regarding how long and the maximal dose of systemic steroids which place patients at high risk for adverse events. Finally, systemic corticosteroids seem to offer only temporary benefit on recovery of smell without guaranteeing long-term control even if the patient is adherent to topical corticosteroids. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for clear guidelines on oral steroids, which could help supporting the use of a precision medicine approach, including indications for new biological agents.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of olfactory and taste dysfunction (OD; TD) among COVID‐19 positive health care workers (HCWs), their associated risk factors and prognosis.Methods: Between May and June 2020, a longitudinal multicenter study was conducted on symptomatic COVID‐19 PCR confirmed HCWs (COVID‐19 positive) in London and Padua.Results: Hundred and fourteen COVID‐19 positive HCWs were surveyed with a response rate of 70.6% over a median follow‐up period of 52 days. UK prevalence of OD and TD was 73.1% and 69.2%, respectively. There was a male to female ratio of 1:3 with 81.6% being white, 43.7% being nurses/health care assistants (HCAs), and 39.3% being doctors. In addition, 53.2% of them worked on COVID‐19 wards. Complete recovery was reported in 31.8% for OD and 47.1% for TD with a 52 days follow‐up. The job role of doctors and nurses negatively influenced smell (P = .04 and P = .02) and taste recovery (P = .02 and P = .01). Ethnicity (being white) showed to positively influence only taste recovery (P = .04). Sex (being female) negatively influenced OD and TD recovery only in Paduan HCWs (P = .02 and P = .011, respectively). Working on a COVID‐19 ward did not influence prognosis.Conclusions: The prevalence of OD and TD was considerably higher in HCWs. The prognosis for OD and TD recovery was worse for nurses/HCAs and doctors but working on a COVID‐19 ward did not influence prognosis. Sixty‐eight percent of surveyed HCWs at 52 days continued to experience OD or TD requiring additional future medical management capacity.Level of Evidence: 4.