Objectives We set out to create Consensus Guidelines, based on current evidence and relative risks of adverse effects and the costs of different treatments, that reflect the views of the British Rhinological Society (BRS) Council on where the use of biologics should be positioned within treatment pathways for CRSwNP, specifically in the setting of the National Health Service (NHS). Methods An expert panel of 16 members was assembled. A review of the literature and evidence synthesis was undertaken and circulated to the panel We used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi-step process to make recommendations on the use of biologics. Setting and participants N/A Results Recommendations were made, based on underlying disease severity, prior treatments and co-morbidities. A group of patients for whom biologics were considered an appropriate treatment option for CRSwNP was defined. Conclusions Although biologics are not currently available for the treatment of CRSwNP, the BRS Council have defined a group of patients who have higher rates of ‘failure’ with current treatment pathways, higher resource use and are more likely to suffer with uncontrolled symptoms. We would urge NICE to consider approval of biologics for such indications without applying further restrictions on use.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a heterogenous group of inflammatory sinonasal disorders with key defining symptoms, but traditionally separated into phenotypes by clinical/endoscopic findings. It is not known if the two phenotypes have differing socioeconomic, co-morbidity and lifestyle differences. Objective: This analysis of the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study (CRES) database sought to analyse any key differences in the socioeconomic variables between those with CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNPs) and those without nasal polyps (CRSsNP). We also sought to analyse differences in comorbidities, lifestyle and quality of life. Methods: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CRS in secondary and tertiary care outpatient settings were invited to participate in a questionnaire based case-control study. Variables included demographics, comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, lifestyle factors and health related quality of life. Results: A total of 1204 patients’ data were analysed; 553 CRSsNP and 651 CRSwNP participants. The key socioeconomic variables did not demonstrate any notable differences, nor did lifestyle variables other than alcohol consumption being higher in those with CRSwNP (p=0.032). Aside from confirmation of asthma being more common in CRSwNP, it was notable that this group complained less of URTIs and CRSsNP participants showed evidence of lower HRQoL scores in respect of body pain (p=0.001). Conclusions: Patients with CRSwNP experience higher rates of asthma and lower rates of URTIs but otherwise do not demonstrate significant socioeconomic, comorbidity, lifestyle or quality of life issues other than for body pain and alcohol consumption.