LAUSR

Objective: To review published literature for biologic treatment of nasal polyps. Data Sources: PubMed search performed on February 16, 2022, using search terms: biologics, benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, or reslizumab AND nasal polyps, nasal polyposis, or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Inclusion criteria were English language, published randomized controlled trials, post hoc analyses, and meta-analyses evaluating biologics for nasal polyposis, with or without comorbid asthma, and no date limits. Additional studies were found through references of primary and tertiary literature. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Nineteen studies, including 8 randomized controlled trials, 2 meta-analyses, and 9 post hoc analyses, examined the efficacy and safety of biologics for nasal polyposis. Agents studied included benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and reslizumab. Studies had similar inclusion (refractory and recurrent CRSwNP) and exclusion criteria. All studies included the use of an intranasal corticosteroid (mometasone or fluticasone) in addition to the biologic or placebo. The most commonly studied primary endpoint was change in endoscopic nasal polyp score. Data Synthesis: All studies, post hoc analyses, and meta-analyses found improvement in endoscopic, clinical, and/or radiographic endpoints with benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, or reslizumab in patients with CRSwNP with or without comorbid asthma. Dupilumab has the most published data. Dupilumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab are the only biologics currently Food and Drug Administration–approved for CRSwNP. Conclusion: Biologics are beneficial for treating nasal polyps with or without comorbid asthma. The choice depends on patient and provider preference and insurance coverage.