Eosinophilic Mucin: A Predictor for Disease Severity in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Aykut A Unsal1, Camilo Reyes2,3, Paul Biddinger4

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Abstract

Insights

Eosinophilic mucin (EM) presence indicates more severe chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in patients with tissue eosinophilia. While EM patients show symptom improvement, their objective scores remain worse longer, with a count of 30+ eosinophils per HPF potentially predicting EM.

Area of Science:

  • Otolaryngology
  • Immunology
  • Pathology

Background:

  • Tissue eosinophilia is a known indicator of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) severity.
  • The independent role of eosinophilic mucin (EM) in CRS disease severity has not been fully established.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of eosinophilic mucin (EM) as an independent variable in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
  • To determine if EM presence correlates with disease severity and treatment outcomes in CRS patients with tissue eosinophilia.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective review of 192 CRS patients who failed medical therapy at a tertiary academic clinic.
  • Classification based on tissue eosinophilia, presence of nasal polyps, and EM identified via pathological examination.
  • Comparison of preoperative and postoperative Sinonasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22), Lund-Mackay (LM), and Lund-Kennedy (LK) scores.

Main Results:

  • Eosinophilic mucin (EM) was exclusively found in patients with tissue eosinophilia.
  • EM presence was associated with significantly worse preoperative subjective and objective CRS severity scores (P < 0.005).
  • A tissue eosinophil count of ≥30 per high power field (HPF) was identified as a potential marker for EM development.

Conclusions:

  • Eosinophilic mucin (EM) presence is a significant predictor of overall worse disease severity in patients with eosinophilic CRS.
  • Patients with EM experienced greater symptom improvement postoperatively but maintained poorer objective endoscopic scores for up to 1.5 years.