Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2020
Use of endotypes, phenotypes, and inflammatory markers to guide treatment decisions in chronic rhinosinusitis.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Staudacher Anna G, Peters Anju T, Kato Atsushi, Stevens Whitney W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: With the advent of new treatment options for Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) comes the ability for physicians to provide more individualized patient care. Physicians are now tasked with identifying who may be the best candidate for a particular therapy. In this review, existing biomarkers and potentially new methods that could guide treatment choices in CRS patients will be discussed.
DATA SOURCES: Published literature obtained through PubMed searches.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies relevant to inflammatory endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS were included.
RESULTS: Currently, there are no clinically validated tools that determine the best therapeutic modality for CRS patients with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP or CRSsNP). Patients with CRS can be classified into three endotypes based on the presence of type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation. CRS endotypes can be influenced by age and geographic location. Clinical application however may be limited since endotyping current requires basic research laboratory support. Clinical symptoms may also predict inflammatory endotypes with smell loss being indicative of type 2 inflammation. Numbers of tissue and/or peripheral eosinophils as well as levels of IgE may predict disease severity in CRSwNP but not necessarily treatment responses. Unique clinical phenotypes or biomarkers are especially lacking that predict type 1 or type 3 inflammation in CRSwNP or type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation in CRSsNP.
CONCLUSION: While significant progress has been made in characterizing endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS, additional studies are needed to determine if and how these factors could assist physicians in providing more individualized clinical care.
DATA SOURCES: Published literature obtained through PubMed searches.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies relevant to inflammatory endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS were included.
RESULTS: Currently, there are no clinically validated tools that determine the best therapeutic modality for CRS patients with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP or CRSsNP). Patients with CRS can be classified into three endotypes based on the presence of type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation. CRS endotypes can be influenced by age and geographic location. Clinical application however may be limited since endotyping current requires basic research laboratory support. Clinical symptoms may also predict inflammatory endotypes with smell loss being indicative of type 2 inflammation. Numbers of tissue and/or peripheral eosinophils as well as levels of IgE may predict disease severity in CRSwNP but not necessarily treatment responses. Unique clinical phenotypes or biomarkers are especially lacking that predict type 1 or type 3 inflammation in CRSwNP or type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation in CRSsNP.
CONCLUSION: While significant progress has been made in characterizing endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS, additional studies are needed to determine if and how these factors could assist physicians in providing more individualized clinical care.