4.5 Article

Current and emerging biological therapies for Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps with type 2 inflammation

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 909-919

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13543784.2023.2273502

关键词

Biologics; chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP); monoclonal antibody; refractory; type 2 inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the era of precision medicine, biologics have the potential to provide customized therapies to patients with CRSwNP, particularly those with refractory CRSwNP driven by type 2 inflammation. Large clinical trials and real-world experiences are essential for the application of biologics. In order to make biological therapy more tailored to patients, further research is needed to understand the different mechanisms of biologics, elucidate the relationship between biologics and conventional medical and surgical treatments, and identify predictive biomarkers.
Introduction: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), especially CRSwNP with type 2 inflammation, remains the most difficult-to-treat subtype with high prevalence worldwide. The emergence of biologics has the potential to fulfill the unmet medical needs of patients with CRSwNP driven by type 2 inflammation.Areas covered: A current review of the literature was performed to overview current and emerging biological therapies in the treatment of CRSwNP.Expert opinion: In an era of precision medicine, biologics have been given expectations to provide customized therapies to patients with CRSwNP, particularly those with refractory CRSwNP. Large clinical trials and real-world experiences are both essential for the application of biologics. Moreover, to make biological therapy more tailored to patients, an in-depth understanding of the different mechanisms of biologics, further elucidating the relationship between biologics and conventional medical and surgical treatments, and identifying predictive biomarkers warrant thorough investigations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据