• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by Pinky Sharma • March 4, 2026

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

CLINICAL QUESTION

You Might Also Like

  • What Otolaryngologists Need to Know about Biologics and Allergic Rhinitis
  • Are New Biologics a Game Changer for Treating Nasal Polyposis?
  • What Is a Biosimilar?
  • Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyposis
Explore This Issue
March 2026

Do biologic therapies improve symptoms, endoscopic findings, and inflammatory markers in patients with recalcitrant allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS)?

BOTTOM LINE

Biologic therapy—including dupilumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab—significantly improved SNOT-22 scores, endoscopic scores, serum eosinophil counts, and total IgE levels in patients with refractory AFRS across six studies (60 patients). No adverse events, additional surgeries, or systemic corticosteroid requirements were reported during short-term follow-up (three to 14 months).

BACKGROUND: AFRS is a sub-type of chronic rhinosinusitis driven by type I and type III IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to fungal antigens. Despite endoscopic sinus surgery and post-operative steroid regimens, many patients experience persistent or recurrent disease. Given AFRS’s strong type 2 inflammatory signature, biologics used in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP)—such as dupilumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab—may offer therapeutic benefit, though specific evidence for AFRS has been limited.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies evaluating biologic therapy for refractory AFRS. Databases were searched through November 2024. Eligible studies included biologic treatment with quantifiable pre-treatment and post-treatment outcomes (SNOT-22, endoscopic scores, serum eosinophils, total IgE). Follow-up ranged from three to 14 months.

SETTING: International review, including studies from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Korea

SYNOPSIS: The review included 60 patients who received biologics after failing conventional medical and surgical management. Across all biologics, treatment resulted in significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes, endoscopic appearance, and inflammatory laboratory markers. SNOT-22 scores improved substantially, reflecting reductions in nasal obstruction, facial pressure, and overall symptom burden. Endoscopic scores demonstrated less mucosal edema, reduced allergic mucin, and improved sinus cavity appearance. Biologic therapy also led to decreases in serum eosinophil counts and total IgE levels, consistent with suppression of type 2 inflammatory pathways. Dupilumab—an inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling—produced the broadest improvements across clinical and laboratory domains. Mepolizumab effectively reduced eosinophil counts and improved symptoms, while omalizumab improved symptoms and endoscopic findings but showed limited short-term reduction in total IgE. Importantly, none of the studies reported serious adverse effects, additional surgeries, or systemic corticosteroid requirements during follow-up. Limitations included small sample sizes, short follow-up durations, and heterogeneity across study methods and biologic types. Despite these limitations, the findings suggest biologics may be a valuable therapeutic option in recalcitrant AFRS, particularly for patients seeking to minimize systemic steroid exposure.

CITATION: Im YH, et al. Short-term efficacy of biologics in recalcitrant allergic fungal rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025;173:840-847. doi: 10.1002/ohn.1339.

COMMENT: AFRS can be a challenging condition to treat with recurrence. Treatment typically relies on well-performed endoscopic sinus surgery, removal of fungal elements and inspissated secretions, and the delivery of topical corticosteroids in high-volume irrigations, often with the need for oral corticosteroids in cases of recurrence. The approval data for biologic medications specifically excluded these patients; however, this meta-analysis finds that in patients with refractory AFRS, biologics can provide significant benefit in those who have failed routine medical therapy. These medications may offer an additional option for these patients, who traditionally needed to have repeated courses of oral corticosteroids and/or revision surgeries for management of their disease.—Ashoke Khanwalkar, MD.

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Rhinology Tagged With: AFRS, biologic therapiesIssue: March 2026

You Might Also Like:

  • What Otolaryngologists Need to Know about Biologics and Allergic Rhinitis
  • Are New Biologics a Game Changer for Treating Nasal Polyposis?
  • What Is a Biosimilar?
  • Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyposis

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

More and more medical trainees are taking dedicated, prolonged gap years. Did you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Office Laryngoscopy Is Not Aerosol Generating When Evaluated by Optical Particle Sizer
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Top 10 LARY and LIO Articles of 2024
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck
    • Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • The Devaluation of Otolaryngology: An Evaluation of CMS’s Involvement in Physician Reimbursement
    • Embolized Middle Meningeal Artery as a Surgical Landmark in Infratemporal Fossa
    • Lord of the (Magnetic) Rings: Rigid Bronchoscopy for Aspirated Magnetic Foreign Bodies in Tertiary Bronchi
    • What Otolaryngologists Can Learn from Athletes

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939