Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: Current Status and Clinical Considerations in Korea
- Author:
Ki-Il LEE
1
;
Gwanghui RYU
;
Shin Hyuk YOO
;
Hyung-Ju CHO
;
Ji-Hun MO
;
Chang-Hoon KIM
;
Author Information
- Publication Type:Review
- From:Journal of Rhinology 2025;32(1):1-9
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: 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.
