Abstract
Background
Since 2022, several biologics are indicated and reimbursed for Belgian patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP despite previous endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Data on the impact of biologics on the number of patients undergoing revision ESS are lacking.
Methods
We analyzed the trend in numbers and percentages of patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP being offered primary ESS, revision ESS or biologics according to both academic- and reimbursement criteria at a tertiary care Rhinology center (University Hospitals Leuven) in Belgium, from 2019 until 2023.
Results
A total of 641 patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP had been offered primary/revision ESS or biologics in the past 5 years. In contrast to the overall increase in annual numbers of CRSwNP patients treated for uncontrolled CRSwNP from 2019 (n = 128) until 2023 (n = 160) by ESS or biologics, the absolute number of patients undergoing revision surgery is reduced by the advent of biologics since 2022. Patient numbers undergoing revision ESS were 66 and 59 in 2019 and 2020 respectively, and 48 in 2023. Moreover, the percentage of patients undergoing revision surgery dropped from 52% and 56% in 2019 and 2020, respectively to 34% and 30% in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The percentage of primary ESS procedures remained stable.
Conclusion
The advent of biologics reduced the number and percentage of severe uncontrolled CRSwNP patients undergoing revision ESS, in contrast to number and percentage of primary ESS.
Keywords: biologicals, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, ESS, revision ESS, tertiary care center
Introduction
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal and paranasal sinuses, with a prevalence of 3%–6% in adults. It is often associated with other comorbidities, such as asthma and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), leading to a significant reduced quality of life (QoL) (1, 2).
CRSwNP is diagnosed in patients with nasal polyps who have symptoms of nasal blockage/congestion and/or anterior or postnasal drip with or without impaired sense of smell and facial pain/pressure, for more than 12 weeks (1).
The pathophysiology of CRSwNP is complex and involves a combination of genetic, environmental and immunological factors. In Western populations, CRSwNP is predominantly driven by type 2 inflammation, which is associated with increased resistance to therapy compared to type 1 or type 3 inflammatory profiles (1, 3).
Key molecules in the type 2 immune cascade include type 2 helper cells, interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13. All of which play important roles in increasing local eosinophils and total IgE levels (4).
Nasal rinses and intranasal corticosteroids are the first-line treatment for this disease. When this treatment fails, the next step is to perform functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). FESS is a minimally invasive surgical procedure where the sinus ostia are opened endoscopically to improve mucociliary transport and remove inflamed tissue (1, 5). While FESS is generally considered safe and effective, there can be potential complications associated with the procedure. The most dangerous complications include orbital injury and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Another potential complication of FESS is infection or epistaxis (6).
Despite surgery, around 40% of the patients remain uncontrolled (7). For these patients, after further work up, several additional treatment options are available according to the EPOS guidelines: aspirin treatment after desensitization (ATAD), revision surgery, biologics or treatment with oral corticosteroids. In the past, most patients underwent a revision FESS. However, the revision procedure is more complex than the primary surgery due to the absence or alteration of anatomic landmarks, scar tissue, and bone thickening, increasing the risk of complications (8, 9). Moreover, revision surgery itself is also a potential risk factor for subsequent surgeries (10).
Since 2022, several biologics became reimbursed for the indication of CRSwNP and therefore available for our patients. Biologics are a specific kind of treatment with recombinant DNA-derived humanized monoclonal antibodies that selectively bind specific targets in the inflammatory cascade which contribute to the pathophysiology of CRSwNP (11, 12). Their efficacy and safety have been proven in various phase 3 trials (13–17). Reimbursement criteria differ across nations but mostly involve the following criteria matching the EUFOREA criteria for a biological: bilateral nasal polyps, a history of ESS, significant impact on quality of life, evidence of type 2 inflammation and need for rescue treatment despite appropriate maintenance treatment (11).
The impact of the availability of biologics and their reimbursement criteria on the number of revision ESS procedures for CRSwNP remains unexplored. This study aims to assess whether the introduction of biologics has influenced the frequency of revision FESS in CRSwNP patients.
Materials and methods
Study design
This academic retrospective observational study was conducted at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery of the University Hospital Leuven, Belgium, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee on August 22, 2023. Patients undergoing bilateral ESS or DRAFIII operations for uncontrolled CRSwNP according to the EPOS criteria (1) and those who started biologic treatments for the indication of CRSwNP according to the EPOS criteria (1) between January 2019 and December 2023 were included. Collected patient characteristics included age, gender, number of ESS operations, allergies, aspirin intolerance, and smoking status.
Data analysis
Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27). Group differences were assessed with a two-tailed unpaired t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test, depending on normality. For comparisons across multiple groups, one-way ANOVA or the Kruskal–Wallis test with post hoc analysis was applied. Correlations between continuous variables were evaluated using Pearson's or Spearman's correlation, based on normality. Categorical variable differences were analyzed using the chi-squared test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple testing.
Results
A total of 641 patients with severe uncontrolled CRSwNP was offered primary/revision ESS or biologics between 2019 and 2023. Although there was a temporary decline in the total number of patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), a general upward trend was observed, with 128 patients treated in 2019 compared to 160 patients in 2023. The absolute number of patients undergoing revision ESS decreased over time, from 66 in 2019 and 59 in 2020 to 49 in 2022 and 48 in 2023. Similarly, the proportion of patients undergoing revision surgery also dropped from 52% in 2019% and 56% in 2020 to 34% in 2022% and 30% in 2023. In contrast, the absolute and relative number of primary ESS remained stable with 62 (48%) in 2019, 61 (42%) in 2022 and 46 (43%) in 2023 (Figure 1). Looking at differences in baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing a primary ESS were significantly younger (44.4 ± 17.5 years) compared to those undergoing revision ESS (48.1 ± 15.8 years) and those treated with biologics (52.4 ± 13.4 years). Patients in the biologics group had higher rates of comorbidities like allergies (61%), asthma (73%), and AERD (33.3%) compared to the primary and revision ESS groups, reflecting the high disease burden in these patients (Table 1).
Figure 1.
Percentages of the different treatments (biologicals, primary ESS, revision ESS) throughout the years (2019–2023).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics.
| Baseline characteristics | General (n = 641) | Primary FESS (n = 284) | Revision FESS (n = 273) | Biologicals (n = 84) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Mean age n (± SD) | 47 (±16.5) | 44.4 (±17.5) | 48.1 (±15.8) | 52.1 (±13.4) |
| FESS n (%) | ||||
| - Primary | 316 (49.3%) | 284 (100%) | 0 (%) | 32 (48%) |
| - Revision | 321 (50.1%) | 0 (0%) | 273 (100%) | 48 (57.1%) |
| - None | 4 (0.62%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (4.7%) |
| *Allergy n (%) | 288 (44.9%) | 114 (40.1%) | 123 (45.1%) | 51 (60.7%) |
| *Asthma n (%) | 246 (38.4%) | 80 (28.1%) | 105 (38.5%) | 61 (62.6%) |
| *AERD n (%) | 86 (13.4%) | 9 (3.1%) | 49 (17.9%) | 28 (33.3%) |
| Smokers n (%) | 86 (13.4%) | 39 (13.7%) | 40 (14.7%) | 7 (8.3) |
| Ex-smokers | 123 (19.2%) | 54 (19.0%) | 58 (21.2%) | 11 (13.1%) |
Significant differences between groups are indicated with a *.
Discussion
To our knowledge, our study is the first to report the impact of the availability and reimbursement of biologics on the number of revision ESS in patients with CRSwNP (in a tertiary care center). Our study illustrates the regression in revision ESS numbers and percentages compared to primary ESS.
Throughout the 5 years, our study found a consistent decrease in the total number of FESS operations. Notably, a descending trend in the frequency of revision FESS exists, in contrast with a modest increase in primary FESS operations. The decline in primary FESS operations during the pandemic, particularly in 2020, can be attributed to various factors including reduced appointment numbers and delayed initiation of treatment pathways. Unlike primary procedures, the decrease in revision FESS was less. This can be attributed to pre-scheduled procedures and potentially higher urgency of cases. The slight increase in primary FESS could be either attributed to the impact of COVID-19 disruptions, prompting the rescheduling of postponed surgeries, or due to the need for at least one fess in order to be approved for reimbursement for biologicals in accordance with the EPOS/EUFOREA criteria (1, 11).
Our patient population and main findings were in line with current literature. The prevalence of asthma as a comorbidity in CRSwNP patients varies from 20% to 60% (1, 18), while the prevalence of allergies ranges around 36% (19). The prevalence of AERD in literature varies from 8% to 26%. (1, 18) In our study, the overall prevalence of AERD was 13.4%. When looking at the different cohorts, we see a significant difference between the three groups. The prevalence in the biological group (33.3%) was notably higher than in the revision FESS group, which was significantly higher than the primary FESS group, suggesting a greater necessity for revision surgery and biologicals among patients with AERD (p < 0.05, phi coefficient: 0.304). This hypothesis is in accordance with previous literature, showing that patients with comorbidities such as AERD or asthma, have more uncontrolled disease and, as a result, need more revision surgery (20). Another meta-analysis by Loftus et al. (10) showed that the rate of revision surgery in patients with comorbidities, such as asthma, is higher than the overall rate, indicating that patients with asthma have higher needs for revision surgery (10).
Strengths and limitations
A key strength of this study is the large patient cohort, providing robust data on treatment trends over a five-year period. Furthermore, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of biologics on revision ESS numbers in a tertiary care setting. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. As a single-center study, our findings may not be fully generalizable to other healthcare settings as a selection bias may be present, as tertiary care centers often manage more severe cases of CRSwNP. Lastly, while our study suggests an association between biologics and declining revision ESS rates, causality cannot be definitively established without prospective studies.
Future directions
To ascertain the persistence of the observed downward trend, it will be essential to conduct further investigations into FESS operations in subsequent years. A prospective study would allow for direct comparison between patients treated with biologics and those undergoing revision ESS, enabling a clearer evaluation of real-world treatment efficacy and patient outcomes. Future studies should also aim to include more detailed clinical variables, such as Lund-Mackay CT scores, SNOT-22 scores, and objective markers of type 2 inflammation, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of disease severity and response to biologics vs. surgery.
Conclusion
We can conclude that the reimbursement of the biologicals in Belgium reduced the number of revision FESS compared to primary FESS surgeries in patients with CRSwNP. Future longitudinal studies are warranted to further elucidate these trends.
Acknowledgments
This is a short text to acknowledge the contributions of specific colleagues, institutions, or agencies that aided the efforts of the authors.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Footnotes
Edited by: Cemal Cingi, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Türkiye
Reviewed by: Nuray Bayar Muluk, Kırıkkale University, Türkiye
Ramiza Ramli, Universiti Sains Malaysia Health Campus, Malaysia
Mu Xian, Beijing Tongren Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, China
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants' legal guardians/next of kin because This study is a retrospective study.
Author contributions
JA: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. ASV: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Supervision. EB: Project administration, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. PH: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
The handling editor (Dr Cingi) declared a past co-authorship with the author (Dr Peter Hellings): https://www.rhinologyjournal.com/Abstract.php?id=3295.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
- 1.Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020. Rhinology. (2020) 58(Suppl S29):1–464. 10.4193/Rhin20.401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fokkens WJ, Lund V, Bachert C, Mullol J, Bjermer L, Bousquet J, et al. EUFOREA consensus on biologics for CRSwNP with or without asthma. Allergy. (2019) 74(12):2312–9. 10.1111/all.13875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bachert C, Marple B, Schlosser RJ, Hopkins C, Schleimer RP, Lambrecht BN, et al. Adult chronic rhinosinusitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2020) 6(1):86. 10.1038/s41572-020-00218-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bachert C, Hicks A, Gane S, Peters AT, Gevaert P, Nash S, et al. The interleukin-4/interleukin-13 pathway in type 2 inflammation in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1356298. 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1356298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Krings JG, Kallogjeri D, Wineland A, Nepple KG, Piccirillo JF, Getz AE. Complications of primary and revision functional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. (2014) 124(4):838–45. 10.1002/lary.24401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dhamija R, Das N, Ding P. Complication rates following endoscopic Sinus surgery for chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. (2025) 39(3):197–204. 10.1177/19458924251315434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.van der Veen J, Seys SF, Timmermans M, Levie P, Jorissen M, Fokkens WJ, et al. Real-life study showing uncontrolled rhinosinusitis after sinus surgery in a tertiary referral centre. Allergy. (2017) 72(2):282–90. 10.1111/all.12983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zhang L, Zhang Y, Gao Y, Wang K, Lou H, Meng Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of different endoscopic sinus surgery in recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and asthma. Rhinology. (2020) 58(2):126–35. 10.4193/Rhin19.184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.DeConde AS, Mace JC, Levy JM, Rudmik L, Alt JA, Smith TL. Prevalence of polyp recurrence after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Laryngoscope. (2017) 127(3):550–5. 10.1002/lary.26391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Loftus CA, Soler ZM, Koochakzadeh S, Desiato VM, Yoo F, Nguyen SA, et al. Revision surgery rates in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: meta-analysis of risk factors. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. (2020) 10(2):199–207. 10.1002/alr.22487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fokkens W, Viskens AS, Backer V, Conti D, Corso E, Gevaert P, et al. EPOS/EUFOREA update on indication and evaluation of biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps 2023. Rhinology. (2023) 61(3):194–202. 10.4193/Rhin22.489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bachert C, Zhang N, Cavaliere C, Weiping W, Gevaert E, Krysko O. Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2020) 145(3):725–39. 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Han JK, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Desrosiers M, Wagenmann M, Lee SE, et al. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. (2021) 9(10):1141–53. 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00097-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gevaert P, Omachi TA, Corren J, Mullol J, Han J, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2020) 146(3):595–605. 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hellings PW, Verhoeven E, Fokkens WJ. State-of-the-art overview on biological treatment for CRSwNP. Rhinology. (2021) 59(2):151–63. 10.4193/Rhin20.570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, Hellings PW, Amin N, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials. Lancet. (2019) 394(10209):1638–50. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cai S, Xu S, Lou H, Zhang L. Comparison of different biologics for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. (2022) 10(7):1876–86.e7. 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.02.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Laidlaw TM, Mullol J, Woessner KM, Amin N, Mannent LP. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. (2021) 9(3):1133–41. 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Murtomäki A, Helevä A, Torkki P, Haukka J, Julkunen-Iivari A, Lemmetyinen R, et al. Comorbidities of chronic rhinosinusitis in children and adults. Clin Transl Allergy. (2024) 14(4):e12354. 10.1002/clt2.12354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Penttilä E, Sillanpää S, Vento SI, Myller J, Koskinen A, Hammarén-Malmi S, et al. Eosinophilia, asthma, NERD and the use of oral corticosteroids predict uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps after surgery. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. (2024) 42(1):50–60. 10.12932/AP-310321-1102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.