Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous disease with distinct inflammatory endotypes, among which eosinophilic CRS (ECRS)—a category that substantially overlaps with, but is not equivalent to, Type 2 CRS—is associated with severe symptoms, frequent recurrence, and comorbid asthma. Accurate identification of Type 2 CRS has become clinically essential with the emergence of biologic therapies that target Type 2 inflammatory pathways. However, most diagnostic criteria, including those proposed by European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 (EPOS 2020), were developed from Western populations, in which ECRS with nasal polyps predominates. This review critically examines the applicability of these criteria in Asian populations, in which non-eosinophilic and mixed inflammatory endotypes remain prevalent. Evidence from Korean and Japanese cohorts indicates that the EPOS 2020 Type 2 criteria have poor specificity in Asian patients with CRS with nasal polyps, classifying nearly all such patients as Type 2 because of differences in baseline biomarker distributions. We discuss histological thresholds for defining ECRS and highlight that Asian studies support higher tissue eosinophil cut-offs, approximately 70 eosinophils per high-power field (HPF) or around 10% of total inflammatory cells, compared with the 10 eosinophils per HPF recommended by Western guidelines. This review also evaluates outpatient- friendly scoring systems, such as Japanese Epidemiological Survey of Refractory Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis (JESREC) and newly proposed Korean diagnostic criteria, as well as emerging machine-learning approaches for noninvasive prediction of ECRS. We conclude that clinicians in Asia should adopt regionally validated criteria that integrate histological, serological, and clinical parameters to accurately identify Type 2 CRS, optimize selection of biologic candidates, and improve prognostic counseling in this population.
Yoo et al. (2026) studied this question.