Systematic literature review of the epidemiology and clinical burden of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis

Objectives We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to determine the epidemiology and clinical burden of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to describe how the addition of biologics has affected outcomes for patients with CRSwNP.Methods The SLR adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases were searched using OVID. Relevant studies published between 1 January 2008 and 8 February 2019, for epidemiology, and 1 January 2008 and 16 February 2019, for clinical burden, and relevant conference abstracts from 1 January 2017 to 7 March 2019, for epidemiology and 1 January 2017–16 February 2019 for clinical burden were included.Results For the epidemiology and clinical burden SLR, 147 and 119 records, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. We found the prevalence of CRSwNP was 1–2.6% and was greater in men. Asthma, allergy, and allergic rhinitis were the most common comorbidities identified. Reported risk factors included asthma, gene polymorphisms, age, and eosinophilia. Studies indicated that dupilumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab each improved different clinical outcomes. Non-biologics (drugs such as corticosteroids or antibiotics, surgery, or aspirin desensitization) improved clinical outcomes as well.Conclusions CRSwNP is fairly prevalent in the general population. Despite the significant efficacy of existing treatments, several unmet needs remain. The high burden of uncontrolled symptoms, frequent recurrence of nasal polyps after surgery, and long-term adverse effects of oral corticosteroids indicate that new therapies addressing these unmet needs should be developed. Although data on biologics from randomized controlled trials look promising, the efficacy of biologics in the real world has yet to be established.The SLR of the epidemiology and clinical burden of CRSwNP revealed key gaps in the literature. There was a paucity of prevalence data across many geographic areas, and no prevalence projections could be determined. Studies showed varying efficacy of non-biologics and no studies directly compared biologics for efficacy. Data regarding clinical efficacy of agents for eosinophilic CRSwNP or severe CRSwNP were lacking, and these patient populations would be served by more trials.