Tezepelumab in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Pathophysiology, Clinical Evidence, and Therapeutic...

Background and Objectives: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease of the nasal and paranasal sinus mucosa, associated with significant impairment in quality of life, frequent postoperative recurrence, and repeated need for systemic glucocorticosteroid therapy. Despite the availability of biologics targeting IL-4/IL-13, IL-5, and IgE, a subset of patients shows incomplete or insufficient clinical response. In this context, upstream targeting of epithelial alarmins, particularly thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), has emerged as a potential therapeutic strategy. To critically review current evidence on the role of TSLP in CRSwNP and to evaluate available data on the mechanism of action, clinical efficacy, and therapeutic potential of tezepelumab in severe and recurrent disease. Materials and Methods: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies published between 2016 and 2026 were included, comprising experimental research, phase II-III clinical trials, systematic reviews, and international guidelines. Results: TSLP functions as an epithelial alarmin that initiates and amplifies type 2 inflammation via dendritic cell activation, Th2 polarization, and activation of type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2). Data suggests that tezepelumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting TSLP, may reduce inflammation and regulate the immune system. Evidence from asthma populations and relevant CRSwNP subgroups indicates potential improvements in nasal polyp score, congestion, olfactory function and quality of life. It is our understanding that the safety profile appears comparable to placebo, with no new safety concerns having been identified in long-term studies. Conclusions: Tezepelumab is a promising biologic that targets inflammation in CRSwNP. It may benefit severe, recurrent, treatment-resistant disease by modulating immune pathways. However, evidence is indirect and limited, and more trials are needed to define its efficacy, identify biomarkers, and clarify its role in treatment algorithms.