4.4 Review

Biology and Function of Eosinophils in Chronic Rhinosinusitis With or Without Nasal Polyps

Journal

ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 8-22

Publisher

KOREAN ACAD ASTHMA ALLERGY & CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
DOI: 10.4168/aair.2021.13.1.8

Keywords

Eosinophils; nasal polyps; sinusitis; biologics; inflammation

Funding

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease [U19 AI136443, K23 AI141694, P01 AI145818]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a complex medical condition characterized by chronic innate and adaptive mucosal inflammation, often treated with corticosteroids and sinus surgery, but newer biologics have been evaluated as alternatives. Studies suggest that a prominent feature in CRS is type 2 inflammation, including tissue eosinophilia.
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyposis is a complex medical condition characterized by varying patterns of chronic innate and adaptive mucosal inflammation. Treatment of CRS has been traditionally limited to corticosteroids and sinus surgery; however, novel biologics have more recently been evaluated as steroid- and surgery-sparing options. While it is clear that there are different subtypes or endotypes of CRS, perhaps the most frequent presentation involves the features of type 2 inflammation, including a prominent tissue eosinophilia component. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on eosinophil biology as well as on the potential contribution of eosinophils and their mediators to the pathophysiology of CRS, drawing mechanistic conclusions mainly from studies of human sinus mucosal tissues, nasal secretions, and benefits (or lack thereof from the use of various pharmacotherapies. The unavoidable conclusion derived from this approach is that eosinophils themselves cannot fully explain the underlying pathophysiology of this complex disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available