Evidence Hub

Matrix metalloproteinases and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Unravelling a puzzle through a systematic review

Spyridon Lygeros, Gerasimos Danielides, Katerina Grafanaki, Maria G. Riga

Rhinology Journal, 2021

10 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The expression of metalloproteinases (MMPs) in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) was reviewed in order to investigate their possible use as therapeutical targets and/or biomarkers. METHODOLOGY: The differences between CRSwNP and normal controls or CRS without NP, as well as the effects of various treatments on MMPs, tissue inhibitors of MMPs (TIMPs) and MMP/TIMP ratios were considered as primary outcomes. Additional factors reported to affect MMP expression levels were noted as secondary outcomes. Data regarding inflammatory subtypes, patients’ clinical characteristics, controls, laboratory method(s) and origin of samples were also pooled. Studies on 10 or fewer patients or on specimens other than nasal and serum were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Tissue sample origin, allergic rhinitis, smoking, infection, medication intake and primary or recurrent disease should be considered as confounding factors for MMP levels. MMP-1 and -7 were consistently found to be significantly higher in CRSwNP patients than controls. CRSwNP endotypes with distinctly different inflammation patterns seem to present similar MMP-related remodelling patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature has revealed several population and methodology related confounding factors and remains inconclusive regarding the roles of MMPs in CRSwNP pathophysiology and their possible clinical usefulness as biomarkers and therapeutical targets.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 10 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free