靶向2型炎症的生物制剂治疗对慢性鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉患者声学嗓音参数的影响：奥马珠单抗与美泊利单抗的比较

文献信息

中文摘要

目的： 近年来，靶向2型炎症的生物制剂在CRSwNP治疗中的应用日益增多。在本研究中，我们旨在评估并比较使用美泊利单抗和奥马珠单抗的患者治疗前后的嗓音质量。
方法： 筛选了2025年8月至2026年8月期间在阿达纳市培训与研究医院耳鼻咽喉科门诊随访的783例CRSwNP患者。20例接受美泊利单抗和22例接受奥马珠单抗且均符合研究标准的患者被纳入研究。在术后3个月（基线）和治疗开始后3个月获取嗓音录音。使用Praat软件分析持续元音/a/发声。评估基频（F0）、jitter、shimmer、噪谐比（NHR）和谐噪比（HNR）。使用适当的参数和非参数检验进行组内和组间比较，并计算效应量。
结果： 观察到显著的时间*组别交互作用，表明两个治疗组之间F0、jitter和shimmer随时间变化的幅度存在显著差异，奥马珠单抗组的降低幅度更大。观察到显著的时间*组别交互作用，表明两个治疗组之间NHR、HNR随时间变化的幅度存在显著差异，美泊利单抗组的变化更大。
结论： 这些发现表明，两种生物制剂治疗对声学嗓音参数均有有利影响；然而，每种治疗似乎对特定声学参数的影响程度不同。

英文摘要

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 inflammation-targeting biological therapies have become increasingly used in CRSwNP treatment in recent years. In our study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the voice quality of patients using Mepolizumab and Omalizumab before and after treatment.
METHODS: 783 patients followed up for CRSwNP between August 2025 and August 2026 at the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic of Adana City Training and Research Hospital were screened. 20 receiving mepolizumab and 22 patients receiving omalizumab, all meeting the study criteria, were included in the study. Voice recordings were obtained 3 months after surgery (baseline) and 3 months after initiation of therapy. Sustained vowel /a/ phonations were analyzed using Praat software. Fundamental frequency (F0), jitter, shimmer, noise-to-harmonics ratio (NHR), and harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR) were evaluated. Within- and between-group comparisons were performed using appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests, and effect sizes were calculated.
RESULTS: A significant time * group interaction was observed, indicating that the magnitude of change in F0, jitter, and shimmer over time differed significantly between the two treatment groups, with a greater reduction observed in the omalizumab group. A significant time * group interaction was observed, indicating that the magnitude of change in NHR, HNR over time differed significantly between the two treatment groups, with a greater change observed in the Mepolizumab group.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that both biological treatments have favorable effects on acoustic voice parameters; however, each treatment appears to influence specific acoustic parameters to a different extent.