Erschienen in:
12.03.2024 | Review
Multidisciplinary Decision-Making—ITAlian Consensus After Two Years of Real Practice on the Management of Severe Uncontrolled CRSwNP by Biologics (ITACA Study)
verfasst von:
Eugenio De Corso, Carlotta Pipolo, Marco Caminati, Elena Cantone, Veronica Seccia, Lorenzo Cecchi, Eustachio Nettis, Massimiliano Garzaro, Giancarlo Ottaviano, Matteo Gelardi, Carlo Cavaliere, Enrico Heffler, Fabio Pagella, Ernesto Pasquini, Matteo Trimarchi, Stefania Gallo, Ignazio La Mantia, Sara Torretta, Davide Mattavelli, Cristiano Caruso, Andrea Matucci, Alessandra Vultaggio, Gianluca Bellocchi, Matteo Alicandri Ciufelli, Passali FM, Gianenrico Senna
Erschienen in:
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
|
Ausgabe 3/2024
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Purpose of Review
We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments.
Recent Findings
A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic.
Summary
The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.