Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a prevalent condition that significantly impacts quality of life and places a burden on healthcare systems. The advent of biologics targeting type 2 immune pathways offers new therapeutic options for severe and/or uncontrolled CRSwNP. Initially, biologic use was guided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) 2020 and the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) guidelines, despite limited data on clinical indications, response measures, and treatment duration. Since then, numerous studies and the EPOS/EUFOREA 2023 update have refined these guidelines. The update defines clinical indications for biologics based on type 2 inflammation markers by lowering the blood eosinophil threshold from 250 to 150 cells/μL. The response to biologics is now more simply categorized into three levels based on reductions in nasal polyp size, improvements in quality of life, and enhancement of smell. Treatment evaluation is recommended at 6 months with annual follow-up. Longer administration intervals, such as every four weeks, have also proven effective in well-controlled patients. Although specific guidelines for discontinuation or switching biologics remain lacking, clinical judgment is essential in determining when treatment should be stopped or adjusted. Additionally, regulatory updates support the use of biologics for CRSwNP, and novel agents such as tezepelumab (an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody) continue to show promise. Finally, in Korea, biologics for CRSwNP are not covered by national health insurance, leading to extended dosing intervals due to high costs. Despite this limitation, studies have shown that adjusted dosing can maintain subjective quality of life. Recent studies by Korean authors have also explored practical considerations such as dosing intervals and comparisons to surgery. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness and prospective studies tailored to the Korean healthcare system.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Progesterone hypersensitivity is mediated by type I, III, and IV hypersensitivity reactions to endogenous or exogenous progesterone, involving autoimmune mechanisms in females of reproductive age. It presents with a range of dermatologic manifestations, most commonly urticaria, angioedema, eczema, and maculopapular rashes. Systemic and severe symptoms, such as generalized erythema multiforme or lesions resembling severe cutaneous adverse reactions, have rarely been reported. We describe a case of a 42-year-old woman who developed drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) following exogenous progesterone therapy administered for assisted reproduction. She received high-dose subcutaneous progesterone and vaginal tablets. Despite this being her first procedure, she achieved pregnancy. However, at 8 weeks of gestation and during the third month of progesterone treatment, she developed generalized erythema multiforme, pruritus, and high-grade fever. Her laboratory findings showed increased blood eosinophil counts and inflammatory markers. After oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment for several weeks, her skin lesions were partially improved. However, after tapering of OCS, her skin lesions were aggravated with increased blood eosinophil counts. Despite daily OCS (prednisolone, 12.5–60 mg/day) treatment after childbirth, her skin symptoms and eosinophilia persisted. Reslizumab treatment was also attempted, but only the eosinophilia resolved. These clinical findings were much improved after Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor (upadacitinib 15 mg/day) treatment; consequently, OCS was stopped. Here, we report a case of relapsing DRESS triggered by exogenous progesterone, which has been controlled by JAK inhibitor treatment.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a prevalent condition that significantly impacts quality of life and places a burden on healthcare systems. The advent of biologics targeting type 2 immune pathways offers new therapeutic options for severe and/or uncontrolled CRSwNP. Initially, biologic use was guided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) 2020 and the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) guidelines, despite limited data on clinical indications, response measures, and treatment duration. Since then, numerous studies and the EPOS/EUFOREA 2023 update have refined these guidelines. The update defines clinical indications for biologics based on type 2 inflammation markers by lowering the blood eosinophil threshold from 250 to 150 cells/μL. The response to biologics is now more simply categorized into three levels based on reductions in nasal polyp size, improvements in quality of life, and enhancement of smell. Treatment evaluation is recommended at 6 months with annual follow-up. Longer administration intervals, such as every four weeks, have also proven effective in well-controlled patients. Although specific guidelines for discontinuation or switching biologics remain lacking, clinical judgment is essential in determining when treatment should be stopped or adjusted. Additionally, regulatory updates support the use of biologics for CRSwNP, and novel agents such as tezepelumab (an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody) continue to show promise. Finally, in Korea, biologics for CRSwNP are not covered by national health insurance, leading to extended dosing intervals due to high costs. Despite this limitation, studies have shown that adjusted dosing can maintain subjective quality of life. Recent studies by Korean authors have also explored practical considerations such as dosing intervals and comparisons to surgery. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness and prospective studies tailored to the Korean healthcare system.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a prevalent condition that significantly impacts quality of life and places a burden on healthcare systems. The advent of biologics targeting type 2 immune pathways offers new therapeutic options for severe and/or uncontrolled CRSwNP. Initially, biologic use was guided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) 2020 and the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) guidelines, despite limited data on clinical indications, response measures, and treatment duration. Since then, numerous studies and the EPOS/EUFOREA 2023 update have refined these guidelines. The update defines clinical indications for biologics based on type 2 inflammation markers by lowering the blood eosinophil threshold from 250 to 150 cells/μL. The response to biologics is now more simply categorized into three levels based on reductions in nasal polyp size, improvements in quality of life, and enhancement of smell. Treatment evaluation is recommended at 6 months with annual follow-up. Longer administration intervals, such as every four weeks, have also proven effective in well-controlled patients. Although specific guidelines for discontinuation or switching biologics remain lacking, clinical judgment is essential in determining when treatment should be stopped or adjusted. Additionally, regulatory updates support the use of biologics for CRSwNP, and novel agents such as tezepelumab (an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody) continue to show promise. Finally, in Korea, biologics for CRSwNP are not covered by national health insurance, leading to extended dosing intervals due to high costs. Despite this limitation, studies have shown that adjusted dosing can maintain subjective quality of life. Recent studies by Korean authors have also explored practical considerations such as dosing intervals and comparisons to surgery. Further research is needed to optimize treatment strategies, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness and prospective studies tailored to the Korean healthcare system.