Omalizumab for asthma in adults and children

Chronic urticaria: unmet needs, emerging drugs, and new perspectives on personalised treatment

Chronic urticaria is a common and debilitating mast cell-driven skin disease presenting with itchy wheals, angio-oedema, or both. Chronic urticaria is classified as spontaneous (without definite triggers) and inducible (with definite and subtype-specific triggers; eg, cold or pressure). Current management guidelines recommend step-up administration of second-generation H1-antihistamines to four-fold the approved dose, followed by omalizumab and ciclosporin. However, in many patients, chronic urticaria does not respond to this linear approach due to heterogeneous underlying mechanisms. A personalised endotype-based approach is emerging based on the identification of autoantibodies and other drivers of urticaria pathogenesis. Over the past decade, clinical trials have presented promising options for targeted treatment of chronic urticaria with the potential for disease modification, including Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anti-cytokine therapies, and mast cell depletion. This Therapeutics article focuses on the evidence for these novel drugs and their role in addressing an unmet need for personalised management of patients with chronic urticaria.

Optimizing Identification of Allergic Sensitization to Seasonal Inhalant Allergens in the USA: Implications for Constructing Optimal Panels to Evaluate Patients with Allergy

INTRODUCTION

While a specific number and type of antigens are recognized to detect perennial inhalant allergies, the optimal number and combination of allergens to reliably identify seasonal allergic sensitization is unclear due to limited national data. This study analyzed aeroallergen testing data from a large US clinical reference laboratory to provide guidance for optimizing seasonal allergen test selection.

METHODS

The 2019 serum IgE tests for seasonal inhalant allergens were identified from the Quest Diagnostics database. Patients with results for at least 1 of 31 seasonal allergens across 4 allergen classes (11 trees, 7 weeds, 5 grasses, and 8 molds) were analyzed. A step-by-step conditional approach was employed to determine the minimum number and species of allergens needed to identify at least 98% of sensitized patients for each class.

RESULTS

Of 88,042 patients tested for ≥1 seasonal allergen, 1.5%, 1.8%, 1.3%, and 1.6% were tested for all trees, weeds, grasses, and molds, respectively. Of those tested for all allergens within a class, 40.4%, 38.6%, 29.5%, and 21.2% were sensitized to at least one tree, weed, grass, or mold allergen, respectively. Identification of ≥98% of sensitized patients within a class required 8 allergens for trees (mountain cedar, maple box elder, walnut, white ash, elm, birch, cottonwood, and hickory/pecan), 5 for weeds (common ragweed short, rough pigweed, English plantain, lamb's quarters/goosefoot, and Russian thistle), 3 for grasses (June/Kentucky blue grass, Johnson grass, and Bermuda grass), and 7 for molds (Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus fumigatus, Mucor racemosus, Epicoccum purpurascens, Penicillium notatum, Helminthosporium halodes, and Fusarium moniliforme).

CONCLUSION

A minimum of 23 antigens is required to optimally detect sensitization to four classes of seasonal allergens (i.e., ≥98% identification). The addition of these allergens to unique perennial allergens (cat, dog, mouse, cockroach, and 2 dust mite species) results in a comprehensive elucidation of inhalant allergen sensitization. This knowledge provides a pivotal guide for clinical laboratories as they construct allergen panels to optimize diagnostic yield.

Quality of Life Improvements with Biologic Initiation Among Subspecialist-Treated US Patients with Severe Asthma

Purpose

Patients living with severe asthma (SA) experience multiple health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairments. This study examined HRQoL changes after biologic treatment initiation among a large, real-world cohort of patients with SA.

Patients and methods

CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of subspecialist-treated adults with SA who receive biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Patients enrolled February 2018-February 2023 were asked to complete the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) every 6 months (total score range of 0-100 [0=best possible health], meaningful change threshold is a 4-unit reduction in the total score). Changes in SGRQ responses from 6 months before initiation to 12 to 18 months after initiation were summarized.

Results

A total of 76 patients completed the SGRQ 0 to 6 months before and 12 to 18 months after biologic initiation. The mean (SD) SGRQ total score decreased from 52.2 (20.6) to 41.9 (23.8), with improvement across the symptoms (-14.5), activity (-11.0), and impacts (-8.3) components. For specific impairments reported by ≥50% of patients before biologic initiation, fewer reported each impairment after biologic initiation; the largest reductions were for "Questions about what activities usually make you feel short of breath these days [Walking outside on level ground]" (67% to 43%), "Questions about other effects that your respiratory problems may have on you these days [I feel that I am not in control of my respiratory problems]" (55% to 34%), and "Questions about your cough and shortness of breath these days [My coughing or breathing disturbs my sleep]" (63% to 45%).

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of adults with SA, biologic initiation was associated with meaningful improvements in asthma-related HRQoL. These data provide further insight into the burden SA places on patients and the benefits of biologic treatment.

Airway remodelling in asthma and the epithelium: on the edge of a new era

Asthma is a chronic, heterogeneous disease of the airways, often characterised by structural changes known collectively as airway remodelling. In response to environmental insults, including pathogens, allergens and pollutants, the epithelium can initiate remodelling via an inflammatory cascade involving a variety of mediators that have downstream effects on both structural and immune cells. These mediators include the epithelial cytokines thymic stromal lymphopoietin, interleukin (IL)-33 and IL-25, which facilitate airway remodelling through cross-talk between epithelial cells and fibroblasts, and between mast cells and airway smooth muscle cells, as well as through signalling with immune cells such as macrophages. The epithelium can also initiate airway remodelling independently of inflammation in response to the mechanical stress present during bronchoconstriction. Furthermore, genetic and epigenetic alterations to epithelial components are believed to influence remodelling. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of the roles of the epithelium and epithelial cytokines in driving airway remodelling, facilitated by developments in genetic sequencing and imaging techniques. We also explore how new and existing therapeutics that target the epithelium and epithelial cytokines could modify airway remodelling.

[Asthma]

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects about 5% of the world's population and generates high health and social costs. Proper management of the disease requires a correct diagnosis, based on objective measures of functional impairment, as well as symptom control and assessment of the future risk of exacerbations.It has been estimated that 18% of asthma patients in Western Europe have severe asthma and approximately 50% of them have poor control. The severity of asthma is established based on the minimum maintenance treatment needs to achieve control. Asthma clinical practice guidelines recommend classifying severe patients into allergic asthma (T2); eosinophilic asthma (T2) and non-T2 asthma in order to establish the most appropriate treatment.In recent decades, new biological therapies have been developed that can be applied according to the phenotype and endotype of asthma, allowing for selective and personalized treatment. These phenotypes and endotypes can change over time and therefore, the identification of biomarkers capable of predicting the severity, the course of the disease and the response to a given treatment seems essential. A large number of biomarkers have been studied in asthma, but so far only a few can be readily used in routine clinical practice. The application of omics technologies (epigenomics, genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, etc.) for this purpose is still in the research phase.

Cost effectiveness of omalizumab for severe asthma in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to free human immunoglobulin E. The introduction of this drug raises concerns about economic impact in scenarios with constrained. This study aimed to estimate the cost utility of omalizumab in adults with severe asthma uncontrolled in Colombia.

METHODS

We used a Markov state-transition model to estimate the cost and QALYs associated with omalizumab compared to standard of care; from a third payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. This model used local costs while utilities were derived from international literature. Cost and transition probabilities were obtained from a mixture of Colombian-specific and internationally published data.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of omalizumab versus standard of care is US$3 481. The mean incremental benefit of omalizumab versus standard of care 0.094 QALY. The incremental expected cost per unit of benefit is estimated at US$36846 per QALY. There is only a probability of 0.032 that Omalizumab is more cost-effective than standard of care at a threshold of US$5180 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab is not cost-effective in adults with severe asthma uncontrolled in Colombia. If the cost of Omalizumab is reduced by 83%, this treatment would be cost-effective in our country. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

The airway epithelium: an orchestrator of inflammation, a key structural barrier and a therapeutic target in severe asthma

Asthma is a disease of heterogeneous pathology, typically characterised by excessive inflammatory and bronchoconstrictor responses to the environment. The clinical expression of the disease is a consequence of the interaction between environmental factors and host factors over time, including genetic susceptibility, immune dysregulation and airway remodelling. As a critical interface between the host and the environment, the airway epithelium plays an important role in maintaining homeostasis in the face of environmental challenges. Disruption of epithelial integrity is a key factor contributing to multiple processes underlying asthma pathology. In this review, we first discuss the unmet need in asthma management and provide an overview of the structure and function of the airway epithelium. We then focus on key pathophysiological changes that occur in the airway epithelium, including epithelial barrier disruption, immune hyperreactivity, remodelling, mucus hypersecretion and mucus plugging, highlighting how these processes manifest clinically and how they might be targeted by current and novel therapeutics.

Efficacy of omalizumab in adult patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis: a multicentre study in China

Despite conventional glucocorticoid and antifungal therapy, acute exacerbation and hospitalization occur frequently in patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Whether omalizumab is an effective and safe treatment for adult patients with ABPA complicating asthma. Patients with ABPA complicating asthma who were treated with omalizumab from October 2019 to May 2023 were collected from five tertiary hospitals and evaluated. The frequencies of acute exacerbation and hospitalization; the number of eosinophils; the total IgE levels; and the average monthly medical dosages after 3, 6, and 12 months of omalizumab treatment were analysed, and the data before and after treatment (up to one year) were compared. The efficacy and safety of omalizumab treatment were assessed. In total, 26 patients were enrolled. The average monthly glucocorticoid dosage significantly decreased (median 0 vs. 24 mg/m) after 6 months of omalizumab treatment compared with 3 months; 73.68% of patients discontinued glucocorticoids after ≤ 12 months of treatment. Similarly, the average monthly dosage of antifungal agents was significantly decreased (median 0 vs. 3.49 g/m) after 12 months of treatment compared with 3 months. The average monthly glucocorticoid dosage (median 213.75 vs. 65.42 mg/m, P = 0.002) and the frequency of acute exacerbation (median 0.94 vs. 0.44 events, P = 0.033) were considerably reduced after omalizumab treatment. Omalizumab is effective in reducing the frequency of acute exacerbation and the necessary dosage of glucocorticoids in adult patients with ABPA complicating asthma. Patient age and BMI may affect the efficacy of treatment.

Potential Indications of Dupilumab in Th-2 Inflammatory Disease

Dupilumab is a fully humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody, inhibiting IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, which are the main cytokines involved in type 2 inflammatory diseases. Its introduction was a breakthrough in the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, but it is also used in other inflammatory diseases, including asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Recent advances in the understanding of inflammatory pathways have revealed that Th2-type inflammation is involved in a wider range of diseases than previously thought. The aim of our review is to examine off-label therapeutic indications of dupilumab, including bullous dermatoses (pemphigus, bullous pemphigoid) and alopecia areata, and to investigate its potential applications in cancer patients on anti-PD1 therapy.

Four-Color ImmunoSpot® Assays Requiring Only 1-3 mL of Blood Permit Precise Frequency Measurements of Antigen-Specific B Cells-Secreting Immunoglobulins of All Four Classes and Subclasses

The B lymphocyte response can encompass four immunoglobulin (Ig) classes and four IgG subclasses, each contributing fundamentally different effector functions. Production of the appropriate Ig class/subclass is critical for both successful host defense and avoidance of immunopathology. The assessment of an antigen-specific B cell response, including its magnitude and Ig class/subclass composition, is most often confined to the antibodies present in serum and other biological fluids and neglects monitoring of the memory B cell (Bmem) compartment capable of mounting a faster and more efficient antibody response following antigen reencounter. Here, we describe how the frequency and Ig class and IgG subclass use of an antigen-specific Bmem repertoire can be determined with relatively little labor and cost, requiring only 8 × 105 freshly isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC), or if additional cryopreservation and polyclonal stimulation is necessary, 3 × 106 PBMC per antigen. To experimentally validate such cell saving assays, we have documented that frequency measurements of antibody-secreting cells (ASC) yield results indistinguishable from those of enzymatic (ELISPOT) or fluorescent (FluoroSpot) versions of the ImmunoSpot® assay, including when the latter are detected in alternative fluorescent channels. Moreover, we have shown that frequency calculations that are based on linear regression analysis of serial PBMC dilutions using a single well per dilution step are as accurate as those performed using replicate wells. Collectively, our data highlight the capacity of multiplexed B cell FluoroSpot assays in conjunction with serial dilutions to significantly reduce the PBMC requirement for detailed assessment of antigen-specific B cells. The protocols presented here allow GLP-compliant high-throughput measurements which should help to introduce high-dimensional Bmem characterization into the standard immune monitoring repertoire.

Monitoring Memory B Cells by Next-Generation ImmunoSpot® Provides Insights into Humoral Immunity that Measurements of Circulating Antibodies Do Not Reveal

Memory B cells (Bmem) provide the second wall of adaptive humoral host defense upon specific antigen rechallenge when the first wall, consisting of preformed antibodies originating from a preceding antibody response, fails. This is the case, as recently experienced with SARS-CoV-2 infections and previously with seasonal influenza, when levels of neutralizing antibodies decline or when variant viruses arise that evade such. While in these instances, reinfection can occur, in both scenarios, the rapid engagement of preexisting Bmem into the recall response can still confer immune protection. Bmem are known to play a critical role in host defense, yet their assessment has not become part of the standard immune monitoring repertoire. Here we describe a new generation of B cell ELISPOT/FluoroSpot (collectively ImmunoSpot®) approaches suited to dissect, at single-cell resolution, the Bmem repertoire ex vivo, revealing its immunoglobulin class/subclass utilization, and its affinity distribution for the original, and for variant viruses/antigens. Because such comprehensive B cell ImmunoSpot® tests can be performed with minimal cell material, are scalable, and robust, they promise to be well-suited for routine immune monitoring.

Assessing the Affinity Spectrum of the Antigen-Specific B Cell Repertoire via ImmunoSpot®

The affinity distribution of the antigen-specific memory B cell (Bmem) repertoire in the body is a critical variable that defines an individual's ability to rapidly generate high-affinity protective antibody specificities. Detailed measurement of antibody affinity so far has largely been confined to studies of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and are laborious since each individual mAb needs to be evaluated in isolation. Here, we introduce two variants of the B cell ImmunoSpot® assay that are suitable for simultaneously assessing the affinity distribution of hundreds of individual B cells within a test sample at single-cell resolution using relatively little labor and with high-throughput capacity. First, we experimentally validated that both ImmunoSpot® assay variants are suitable for establishing functional affinity hierarchies using B cell hybridoma lines as model antibody-secreting cells (ASC), each producing mAb with known affinity for a defined antigen. We then leveraged both ImmunoSpot® variants for characterizing the affinity distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific ASC in PBMC following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Such ImmunoSpot® assays promise to offer tremendous value for future B cell immune monitoring efforts, owing to their ease of implementation, applicability to essentially any antigenic system, economy of PBMC utilization, high-throughput capacity, and suitability for regulated testing.

Why Current Therapy Does Not Cure Asthma. Is It Time to Move Towards a One Health Approach?

Asthma continues to be a disease for which there is no cure, even if it can be very well controlled with the appropriate therapies, which take into account the specific phenotype. The paradox of asthma is that asthma can heal spontaneously, albeit in a small percentage of cases. This observation is highly relevant, since understanding the mechanisms of spontaneous healing can pave the way for new strategies for treating asthma. It is likely that the lack of cure for asthma is due to the fact that current therapies target downstream mediators of the inflammatory response. Asthma can be considered a response of maladaptation of the airway epithelium to the environment, through the orientation of the innate immunity towards an inflammatory response. The important effect of the environment on asthma progress comes from interventions which help children who live in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods move to higher resourced neighborhoods. It is quite interesting that the magnitude of decrease of exacerbations associated with moving was larger than the effect of inhaled corticosteroids and similar to that observed for the effect of biologic agents. Alpine altitude climate treatment is a natural treatment that targets biological pathway, improving various outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life, exacerbation rate and hospitalizations. If as researchers we want to set ourselves the goal of achieving complete remission of asthma, without the need for ongoing maintenance treatment, we need to change the approach to finding new asthma treatment strategies. The One Health approach, an interdisciplinary strategy with focal point on human, animal, and environmental health interconnections, appears to be the right tool for researching asthma prevention and treatment.

Retrospective Analysis of Biologic Agent Utilization in Severe Asthma: Impact on Exacerbation Rates, Forced Expiratory Volume in the First Second (FEV1), Eosinophils, and IgE Levels

Introduction Severe uncontrolled asthma is challenging to manage and impacts lung function and symptoms. Biologic agents targeting inflammatory pathways have transformed asthma management. This retrospective chart review aimed to assess biologic therapy in severe uncontrolled asthma patients and evaluate outcomes. Methods The study analyzed medical records of 30 patients receiving biologic therapy for severe asthma at a tertiary care center in Peshawar, Pakistan, from December 2022 to Jun 2023. Ethical approval was obtained, and patient demographics, biologic agent usage, and clinical parameters were collected. Clinical outcomes were evaluated after six months, including forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), eosinophil count, IgE levels, and exacerbation rates. Results After six months, biologic treatment significantly improved FEV1 (48.7% to 62.4%), reduced eosinophils (540 cells/μL to 290 cells/μL) and IgE levels (410 IU/mL to 280 IU/mL), and decreased exacerbations (4.6 to 1.9). Subgroup analysis based on age and sex showed consistent lung function improvements. Conclusion Biologic agents effectively targeted inflammatory pathways, improving asthma control in severe uncontrolled asthma patients. This study provides valuable insights into biologic therapy for severe asthma, offering new possibilities for patient outcomes. Larger studies are needed to validate findings and optimize personalized treatment strategies.

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.]

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

Characteristics of patients with severe asthma in primary and secondary care settings considered eligible for biological therapy - the Bulgarian RECOGNISE study

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a major non-communicable disease. It affects both children and adults, but is the most common chronic condition among the former. While inhaled controller drugs stabilize the disease in most asthma patients, there are a certain number of people who suffer from severe asthma, which requires treatment escalation. Oral corticosteroids are usually added, but they are associated with various side effects that may limit their application. The introduction of biologicals targeting inflammatory mediators has opened a new era of asthma treatment highlighting the importance of patient characterization.

T-helper cells and their cytokines in pathogenesis and treatment of asthma

Prosperous advances in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of chronic inflammation and airway remodeling in asthma have been made over the past several decades. Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways characterized by reversible airway obstruction that is self-resolving or remits with treatment. Around half of asthma patients are "Type-2-high" asthma with overexpression of type 2 inflammatory pathways and elevated type 2 cytokines. When stimulated by allergens, airway epithelial cells secrete IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP to derive a Th2 immune response. First ILC2 followed by Th2 cells produces a series of cytokines such as IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13. TFH cells control IgE synthesis by secreting IL-4 to allergen-specific B cells. IL-5 promotes eosinophil inflammation, while IL-13 and IL-4 are involved in goblet cell metaplasia and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Currently, "Type-2 low" asthma is defined as asthma with low levels of T2 biomarkers due to the lack of reliable biomarkers, which is associated with other Th cells. Th1 and Th17 are capable of producing cytokines that recruit neutrophils, such as IFN-γ and IL-17, to participate in the development of "Type-2-low" asthma. Precision medicine targeting Th cells and related cytokines is essential in the management of asthma aiming at the more appropriate patient selection and better treatment response. In this review, we sort out the pathogenesis of Th cells in asthma and summarize the therapeutic approaches involved as well as potential research directions.

[Biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: Current status report 2023]

Severe asthma is associated with increased use of healthcare services, significant deterioration in the quality of life, and high disease and economic burden on patients and societies. Additional treatments are required for severe forms of asthma. Biological agents are recommended for the treatment of severe asthma. In this current status report, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety data of approved biologics; omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, in the treatment of severe asthma and appropriate patient profiles for these biologics. Pubmed and Cochrane databases based on randomized controlled trials, posthoc analyses, meta-analyses, and real-life studies examining the efficacy and effectiveness of biologics in severe asthma were searched, and the results of these studies on important asthma outcomes were reviewed. Existing studies have shown that all the approved biologic agents targeting cells, receptors, and mediators involved in type 2 inflammation in the bronchial wall in severe asthma significantly reduce asthma exacerbations, reduce the need for oral corticosteroids, and improve asthma control, quality of life, and pulmonary functions. Characterizing the asthma endotype and phenotype in patients with severe asthma and determining which treatment would be more appropriate for a particular patient is an essential step in personalized treatment.

Association of a Housing Mobility Program With Childhood Asthma Symptoms and Exacerbations

Importance

Structural racism has been implicated in the disproportionally high asthma morbidity experienced by children living in disadvantaged, urban neighborhoods. Current approaches designed to reduce asthma triggers have modest impact.

Objective

To examine whether participation in a housing mobility program that provided housing vouchers and assistance moving to low-poverty neighborhoods was associated with reduced asthma morbidity among children and to explore potential mediating factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study of 123 children aged 5 to 17 years with persistent asthma whose families participated in the Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership housing mobility program from 2016 to 2020. Children were matched to 115 children enrolled in the Urban Environment and Childhood Asthma (URECA) birth cohort using propensity scores.

Exposure

Moving to a low-poverty neighborhood.

Main Outcomes

Caregiver-reported asthma exacerbations and symptoms.

Results

Among 123 children enrolled in the program, median age was 8.4 years, 58 (47.2%) were female, and 120 (97.6%) were Black. Prior to moving, 89 of 110 children (81%) lived in a high-poverty census tract (>20% of families below the poverty line); after moving, only 1 of 106 children with after-move data (0.9%) lived in a high-poverty tract. Among this cohort, 15.1% (SD, 35.8) had at least 1 exacerbation per 3-month period prior to moving vs 8.5% (SD, 28.0) after moving, an adjusted difference of -6.8 percentage points (95% CI, -11.9% to -1.7%; P = .009). Maximum symptom days in the past 2 weeks were 5.1 (SD, 5.0) before moving and 2.7 (SD, 3.8) after moving, an adjusted difference of -2.37 days (95% CI, -3.14 to -1.59; P < .001). Results remained significant in propensity score-matched analyses with URECA data. Measures of stress, including social cohesion, neighborhood safety, and urban stress, all improved with moving and were estimated to mediate between 29% and 35% of the association between moving and asthma exacerbations.

Conclusions and Relevance

Children with asthma whose families participated in a program that helped them move into low-poverty neighborhoods experienced significant improvements in asthma symptom days and exacerbations. This study adds to the limited evidence suggesting that programs to counter housing discrimination can reduce childhood asthma morbidity.

Impact of a digital web-based asthma platform, a real-life study

BACKGROUND

Digital health technology (DHT) is a growing area in the treatment of chronic diseases. Study results on DHT's effect on asthma control have been mixed, but benefits have been seen for adherence, self-management, symptoms, and quality of life. The aim was to evaluate the impact of an interactive web-based asthma treatment platform on asthma exacerbations and health care visits.

METHODS

In this real-life study, we retrospectively collected data on adult patients registered on a web-based interactive asthma treatment platform between December 2018 and May 2021. Patients who activated their accounts were active users, and patients who did not were inactive users and considered as controls. We compared the number of exacerbations, total number of exacerbation events defined as the sum of oral corticosteroid (OCS) and antimicrobial courses, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and asthma-related health care visits before and one year after the registration on the platform. Statistical tests used included the t-test, Pearson's chi-square test and Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Of 147 patients registered on the platform, 106 activated their accounts and 41 did not. The active users had significantly fewer total number of exacerbation events (2.56 per person years, relative decline 0.78, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and asthma-related health care visits (2.38 per person years, relative decline 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96) than before registration to the platform, whereas the reductions in health care visits and the total number of exacerbation events were not significant in the inactive users.

CONCLUSIONS

An interactive web-based asthma platform can reduce asthma-related health care visits and exacerbations when used actively.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

LMAN1 is a receptor for house dust mite allergens

Development of therapies with the potential to change the allergic asthmatic disease course will require the discovery of targets that play a central role during the initiation of an allergic response, such as those involved in the process of allergen recognition. We use a receptor glycocapture technique to screen for house dust mite (HDM) receptors and identify LMAN1 as a candidate. We verify the ability of LMAN1 to directly bind HDM allergens and demonstrate that LMAN1 is expressed on the surface of dendritic cells (DCs) and airway epithelial cells (AECs) in vivo. Overexpression of LMAN1 downregulates NF-κB signaling in response to inflammatory cytokines or HDM. HDM promotes binding of LMAN1 to the FcRγ and recruitment of SHP1. Last, peripheral DCs of asthmatic individuals show a significant reduction in the expression of LMAN1 compared with healthy controls. These findings have potential implications for the development of therapeutic interventions for atopic disease.

Incremental net monetary benefit of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I²=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I²=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I²=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.

Impact of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Most patients with asthma can control their symptoms with a basic standard of medical care and with maintenance and rescue medication. However, between 5% and 10% of asthmatics worldwide do not achieve control of their symptoms and have recurrent exacerbations and respiratory difficulties. The objective of the study was the real-life evaluation of the clinical improvement of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with omalizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma being treated with omalizumab. Three types of response were evaluated: lower use of oral corticosteroids, improvement in lung function, and reduction in exacerbations. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were included, with a mean age of 48 ± 16 years. After 12 months had elapsed, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, use of oral cortico-steroids and doses of inhaled corticosteroids (p < 0.001). Lung function and asthma control improved significantly (p < 0.001; p = 0.004) and eosinophil levels were significantly reduced (p = 0.004). Low scores in the Asthma Control Test were associated with the oral corticosteroid-saving effect; lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were related to improvement in lung function, and prior FEV1 values higher than 80% and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with a reduction in exacerbations. The results of this study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of omalizumab and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to the treatment.

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

Safety and efficacy of tezepelumab vs. placebo in adult patients with severe uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma still experience acute asthma symptoms and exacerbations, particularly those with non-eosinophilic inflammation who take the maximum amount of standard drug therapy. Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody, can improve lung function and enhance control of asthma symptoms in those patients, regardless of the disease's baseline characteristics. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of using tezepelumab in controlling severe symptoms of uncontrolled asthma. We performed a comprehensive literature search in several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrial.gov, using a well-established search strategy to include all relevant publications. According to our inclusion criteria, we searched for randomized controlled trials comparing tezepelumab versus placebo in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. We analyzed the data using The Revman 5.4 program software. The search identified 589 potential articles. After excluding studies inconsistent with selection criteria, four studies were included and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The pooled effect demonstrated the better performance of tezepelumab over the placebo regarding the decrease in annualized asthma exacerbation rate (MD = - 0.74, (95% CI [- 1.04, - 0.44], p < 0.00001)), asthma control questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) Score MD = - 0.32, (95% CI [- 0.43, - 0.21], p < 0.00001)), blood eosinophil count (MD = - 139.38 cells/mcL, (95% CI [- 150.37, - 128.39], p < 0.00001)), feNO (MD = - 10 ppb, (95% CI [- 15.81, - 4.18], p = 0.0008)) and serum total IgE (MD = - 123.51 UI/ml, (95% CI [- 206.52, - 40.50], p = 0.004)). All tezepelumab groups had higher pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s than the placebo group (MD = 0.16, (95% CI [0.10, 0.21], p < 0.00001)). Higher efficacy and safety profile was detected for tezepelumab to control the exacerbations of severe uncontrolled adult asthmatics.

"Life-changing": the experience of super-responders to biologics in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on the patient's perspective of how biologic treatments impact their lives. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the patient's experience of being considered a super-responder from a quality of life perspective.

METHODS

Patients with severe asthma identified as super-responders were invited to semi-structured interviews conducted online. Participants could bring a family member/friend to the interview. The interviews explored experiences of biologic treatment, were transcribed and underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants took part in this study. Themes emerged on the impact of biologic treatment for participants and for their friends/family: (i) Words used to describe their often life-changing experiences and (ii) the positive changes noted. Biologic treatment stopped the disruption of family life and social life caused by exacerbations. Improvements in mental health were also noted. Marked individual variations in the way it affected their lives were noted. Most participants noticed improvements 2-3 months after starting their biologic, but some noticed improvement within a few days and others after 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Super-responders reported profound but heterogeneous improvements following biologic treatment beyond asthma symptoms and exacerbations including important benefits to social and family life. Improvements may be underestimated as social and family benefits are not reliably measured in current studies with implications for health economic evaluations. Not all patients are super-responders, and excellent responses may be lost in group mean data in trials. Individual time course and response patterns need further elucidation to identify who will respond best to biologics.

Human Lung Mast Cells: Therapeutic Implications in Asthma

Mast cells are strategically located in different compartments of the lung in asthmatic patients. These cells are widely recognized as central effectors and immunomodulators in different asthma phenotypes. Mast cell mediators activate a wide spectrum of cells of the innate and adaptive immune system during airway inflammation. Moreover, these cells modulate the activities of several structural cells (i.e., fibroblasts, airway smooth muscle cells, bronchial epithelial and goblet cells, and endothelial cells) in the human lung. These findings indicate that lung mast cells and their mediators significantly contribute to the immune induction of airway remodeling in severe asthma. Therapies targeting mast cell mediators and/or their receptors, including monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, IL-4/IL-13, IL-5/IL-5Rα, IL-4Rα, TSLP, and IL-33, have been found safe and effective in the treatment of different phenotypes of asthma. Moreover, agonists of inhibitory receptors expressed by human mast cells (Siglec-8, Siglec-6) are under investigation for asthma treatment. Increasing evidence suggests that different approaches to depleting mast cells show promising results in severe asthma treatment. Novel treatments targeting mast cells can presumably change the course of the disease and induce drug-free remission in bronchial asthma. Here, we provide an overview of current and promising treatments for asthma that directly or indirectly target lung mast cells.

Uncontrolled severe T2 asthma: Which biological to choose? A biomarker-based approach

In recent years, advances in knowledge of molecular mechanisms involved in asthma have changed uncontrolled severe asthma (USA) treatment, with the appearance of biological treatment. USA is a heterogeneous entity with different endotypes and phenotypes. Nowadays, the biological drugs approved with asthma indication are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. Tezepelumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and, recently, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All these biological drugs have shown their efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing exacerbations, improving asthma control, quality of life, pulmonary function, and withdrawing systemic corticosteroids or at least reducing their daily dose, with some differences between them. Except for mepolizumab and reslizumab, biological drugs have different targets and thus different therapeutic indications should be expected; however, in some patients, more than one drug could be indicated, making the election more difficult. Because there are no direct comparisons between biological drugs, some biomarkers are used to choose between them, but they are not unbeatable. In this article, an algorithm to choose the first biological drug in a specific patient is proposed based on different study results and patient' characteristics.

Real-life omalizumab exposure and discontinuation in a large nationwide population-based study of paediatric and adult asthma patients

BACKGROUND

This real-life study aimed to assess omalizumab treatment patterns in adult and paediatric asthma patients, and to describe asthma control and healthcare resource use (HCRU) at omalizumab initiation and discontinuation.

METHODS

The French healthcare database system (Système National des Données de Santé (SNDS)) was used to identify asthma patients aged ≥6 years who initiated omalizumab for at least 16 weeks from 2009 to 2019. We examined omalizumab treatment patterns using dispensation records.

RESULTS

We identified 16 750 adults and 2453 children initiating omalizumab. Median treatment persistence before discontinuation (TSTOP) was 51.2 (95% CI 49.3-53.4) months in adults and 53.7 (95% CI 50.6-56.4) months in children. At 2 years of omalizumab exposure, rate of hospitalisation for asthma decreased by 75% and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) by 30%, in adults and children. Among adults who discontinued omalizumab while asthma was controlled, 70%, 39% and 24% remained controlled and did not resume omalizumab at 1, 2 and 3 years after discontinuation, respectively. These proportions were higher in children (76%, 44% and 33%, respectively). Over 2 years of follow-up after discontinuation, HCRU remained stable in adults and children, notably rate of hospitalisations for asthma (none before TSTOP, 1.3% and 0.6% at 2 years) and use of OCS (in adults and children, respectively: 20.0% and 20.2% before TSTOP, 33.3% and 24.6% at 2 years).

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale study describing omalizumab real-life exposure patterns in adult and paediatric asthma patients in France with >10 years of follow-up. We showed the long-term maintenance of low HCRU in adults and children who discontinued omalizumab while asthma was controlled, notably for OCS use and hospitalisations for asthma.

Current Understanding of Asthma Pathogenesis and Biomarkers

Asthma is a heterogeneous lung disease with variable phenotypes (clinical presentations) and distinctive endotypes (mechanisms). Over the last decade, considerable efforts have been made to dissect the cellular and molecular mechanisms of asthma. Aberrant T helper type 2 (Th2) inflammation is the most important pathological process for asthma, which is mediated by Th2 cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-5, IL-4, and IL-13. Approximately 50% of mild-to-moderate asthma and a large portion of severe asthma is induced by Th2-dependent inflammation. Th2-low asthma can be mediated by non-Th2 cytokines, including IL-17 and tumor necrosis factor-α. There is emerging evidence to demonstrate that inflammation-independent processes also contribute to asthma pathogenesis. Protein kinases, adapter protein, microRNAs, ORMDL3, and gasdermin B are newly identified molecules that drive asthma progression, independent of inflammation. Eosinophils, IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and periostin are practical biomarkers for Th2-high asthma. Sputum neutrophils are easily used to diagnose Th2-low asthma. Despite progress, more studies are needed to delineate complex endotypes of asthma and to identify new and practical biomarkers for better diagnosis, classification, and treatment.

Real-life Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: RELIEF Study

Introduction:

Patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) are at risk of severe exacerbations. Omalizumab is recommended as an add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled SAA, despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β2-agonist combination therapy (standard therapy).

RELIEF was a prospective, open label, multicenter study conducted to assess the real-life effectiveness of omalizumab co-administered with standard therapy in patients with SAA for 24 months.

Methods:

A total of 347 patients aged ≥ 6 years with SAA were enrolled, 285 of whom (8 pediatrics and 277 adolescents and adults) completed this 24-month study. Compared with the 12 months prior to baseline, the mean number of exacerbations was reduced in the overall population at any time interval during the study. Proportion of patients with no exacerbations increased to 77.7% at 24 months from 32.6% at 12 months prior to baseline. A reduction in healthcare resource utilization was also observed. The mean number of specialist visits reduced from baseline (5.8 visits) to 2.4 visits at Month 24.

Results:

The mean asthma control test score was >19 at every time-point during the study. The rate of Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) for asthma response significantly increased at Months 18 and 24 (P <0.05) compared to baseline. Pulmonary function remained relatively stable for the overall study population. There were no new or unexpected safety findings in the study.

Conclusion:

RELIEF study showed that add-on therapy with omalizumab is effective in reducing exacerbations, healthcare utilization, and improving GETE score in patients with SAA uncontrolled by standard therapy.

Severe non-atopic asthma: omalizumab can reduce severe asthma exacerbations

Introduction: Humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) has demonstrated efficacy in severe atopic asthma. However, few studies have assessed its efficacy in non-atopic and even less in T2-low severe asthma. The objective was to determinate the omalizumab response according to atopic status.Methods: This retrospective, real-world study was performed in the Chest Diseases Department of Strasbourg University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2017. The response to omalizumab was assessed in 139 patients 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment and compared to data collected prior to omalizumab initiation.Results: Forty-four patients (31.7%) had severe non-atopic asthma and 95 (68.3%) had a severe atopic asthma. In the non-atopic group, omalizumab significantly reduced the severe exacerbation rate by 44% (95% CI 18-64%, p < 0.05), 43% (CI 95% 20-60%, p < 0.05), and 54% (CI 95% 36-67%, p < 0.05), at 4, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A trend toward improvement in FEV1, asthma control and oral corticosteroid use was also observed. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in atopic asthmatics except a more effective oral corticosteroid sparing in atopic group (p < 0.05). Similar reduction of severe exacerbation rates were observed in T2-low asthma subgroup (non-atopic, non-eosinophilic).Conclusion: Omalizumab was effective in severe asthma, regardless of atopic status.

Allergic Asthma in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Allergic asthma is the most common asthma phenotype and is characterized by IgE sensitization to airborne allergens and subsequent typical asthmatic symptoms after exposure. A form of type 2 (T2) airway inflammation underlies allergic asthma. It usually arises in childhood and is accompanied by multimorbidity presenting with the occurrence of other atopic diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis. Diagnosis of the allergic endotype is based on in vivo (skin prick tests) and/or in vitro (allergen-specific IgE levels, component-resolved diagnosis (CRD)) documentation of allergic sensitization. Biomarkers identifying patients with allergic asthma include total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and serum eosinophil counts. The treatment of allergic asthma is a complex procedure and requires a patient-tailored approach. Besides environmental control involving allergen avoidance measurements and cornerstone pharmacological interventions based on inhaled drugs, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) and biologics are now at the forefront when it comes to personalized management of asthma. The current review aims to shed light on the distinct phenotype of allergic asthma, ranging over its current definition, clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and biomarkers, as well as its treatment options in the era of precision medicine.

Investigational approaches for unmet need in severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Molecular antibodies (mAb) targeting inflammatory mediators are effective in T2-high asthma. The recent approval of Tezepelumab presents a novel mAb therapeutic option to those with T2-low asthma.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss a number of clinical problems pertinent to severe asthma which are less responsive to current therapies, such as persistent airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness. We discuss selected investigational approaches, including a number of candidate therapies under investigation in two adaptive platform trials currently in progress, with particular reference to this unmet need, as well as their potential in phenotypes such as neutrophilic asthma and obese asthma, which may or may not overlap with a T2-high phenotype.

EXPERT OPINION

The application of discrete targeting approaches to T2-low molecular phenotypes, including those phenotypes in which inflammation may not arise within the airway, has yielded variable results to date. Endotypes associated with T2-low asthma are likely to be diverse but await validation. Investigational therapeutic approaches must, likewise, be diverse if the goal of remission is to become attainable for all those living with asthma.

Documento de consenso de asma grave en adultos. Actualización 2022

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with several clinical variants and often represents a complex disease requiring a specialized and multidisciplinary approach, as well as the use of multiple drugs. The prevalence of severe asthma varies from one country to another, and it is estimated that 50% of these patients present a poor control of their disease. For the best management of the patient, it is necessary a correct diagnosis, an adequate follow-up and undoubtedly to offer the best available treatment, including biologic treatments with monoclonal antibodies. With this objective, this consensus process was born, which began in its first version in 2018, whose goal is to offer the patient the best possible management of their disease in order to minimize their symptomatology. For this 2020 consensus update, a literature review was conducted by the authors. Subsequently, through a two-round interactive Delphi process, a broad panel of asthma experts from SEPAR and the regional pulmonology societies proposed the recommendations and conclusions contained in this document.

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab Treatment Over a 16-Year Follow-Up: When a Clinical Trial Meets Real-Life

Purpose

Treatment of severe asthma has made great strides thanks to rapid progress in understanding immune response and inflammatory pathways. This led to the advent of the first biologic for severe allergic asthma (SAA), omalizumab. Although the long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab has been confirmed, increasingly longer follow-up data can further reinforce this evidence and potentially provide new ones, for example on any loss of efficacy or the appearance of unexpected side effects. This study reports omalizumab treatment-related outcomes after 16 years of follow-up.

Patients and Methods

In this real-life retrospective study, an extension of a previous 9-year follow-up study on patients initially recruited in a clinical trial, we enrolled 8 adult patients with SAA followed-up from November 2005 to December 2021. Study subjects were selected based on omalizumab eligibility criteria.

Results

Exacerbation rate significantly decreased from 3.6 ± 2.1 events in year before index date to 0.1 ± 0.4 after 32 weeks of treatment (p < 0.0001). Mean annual number of mild-to-moderate exacerbations at 16 years was 0.88 compared with 1.8 in the year before the index date and 1.1 at 32 weeks. No hospitalizations were documented during the 16-year follow-up compared to 0.3 hospitalizations/patient in the year before the index date. Respiratory function also progressively and significantly improved. Regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs), The AQLQ and ACT significantly improved from baseline throughout the follow-up, particularly up to 9 years of follow-up. During the study, an overall reduction in doses of asthma medications was observed, with a significant OCS-sparing effect.

Conclusion

Our study, the longest clinical follow-up on patients treated with anti-IgE, confirms and amplifies the results of the studies carried out so far, as they are maintained over a very long interval of time without drops in efficacy without any type of side effect.

An Overview of Off-Label Use of Humanized Monoclonal Antibodies in Paediatrics

In recent years, off-label and unlicensed drug use has extensively developed in the paediatric population. For a long time, clinical trials in the paediatric population were considered complicated to perform because of ethical problems, causing frequent off-label use. Off-label drug use remains an important public health issue, especially for children with rare conditions or with diseases not responsive to conventional treatments. The present paper is a narrative review of the literature of off-label drug use in children. The aim of our study is to summarize the main works dealing with the off-label use of biological drugs in paediatrics. Further studies analyzing their efficacy, safety, and cost-benefit ratios are needed to extend the use of biological therapies to the paediatric population.

Omalizumab and IgE in the Control of Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab, a human immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 antibody against IgE, is a therapeutic agent for bronchial asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines indicate that the use of omalizumab should be considered as an option in step 5 of treatment for patients with the most severe type of bronchial asthma. In patients with atopic asthma who are at a high risk of exacerbation, and in whom symptoms are poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, omalizumab is one of the few drugs that improves symptoms, reduces the risk of exacerbation, and improves the quality of life while offering a high level of safety. On the other hand, the associated treatment costs are high, and there are no clear methods to identify responders. A recent study suggested that evaluating the therapeutic effects and monitoring the pharmacokinetics of omalizumab could improve the success of omalizumab therapy. This review outlines the relationship between IgE-targeted therapy and the serum level of IgE to enhance the current understanding of the mechanism of omalizumab therapy. It also describes the clinical significance of measuring serum free IgE levels and monitoring omalizumab therapy.

Clinical and Lung Function Outcomes After Anti-IgE or Anti-IL5 Therapy in Severe Asthma

Background

Although there have been indirect comparisons of the relative efficacy of mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) and benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα) in severe asthma patients, long-term direct head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Here, we (i) examined the effect of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and omalizumab on symptom control and lung function parameters over time; and (ii) compared the efficacy of mepolizumab and benralizumab on symptom control and lung function outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with severe asthma taking anti-IgE (omalizumab; n = 24), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, n = 23), or anti-IL-Rα (benralizumab; n = 12) therapy. Data were extracted on (i) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) scores; (ii) forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁); and (iii) peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) at 4–6 months and 1 year and documented reductions in exacerbations. Clinical and lung function outcomes were compared between patients taking mepolizumab and benralizumab and over time.

Results

There were significant decreases in ACQ-5 scores (3.3 ± 0.93 to 1.7 ± 0.98 for mepolizumab, 3.5 ± 0.72 to 1.6 ±0.89 for benralizumab, and 3.5 ± 0.95 to 1.7 ± 1.1 for omalizumab; t-test, all p < 0.0001) but not increases in FEV₁ and PEFR for all three agents after 4–6 months of therapy, which persisted but did not decrease further at one year. There were trends toward a greater percentage increase in FEV₁ and PEFR from baseline and a decrease in the number of exacerbations in patients taking benralizumab than those taking mepolizumab.

Conclusion

Although limited by a small sample size, this real-world, head-to-head comparison of mepolizumab and benralizumab is consistent with comparative data on asthma biologicals and indirect comparisons showing no major difference in efficacy. The study also generates new testable hypotheses about the efficacy of asthma biologicals in different patient populations.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody that was globally approved as a personalized treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This review summarizes the knowledge of almost two decades of use of omalizumab to answer some important everyday clinical practice questions, concerning its efficacy and safety and its association with other asthma-related and drug-related parameters. Evidence suggests that omalizumab improves asthma control and reduces the incidence and frequency of exacerbations in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is also effective in those patients in reducing corticosteroid use and healthcare utilization, while it also seems to improve lung function. Several biomarkers have been recognized in predicting its efficacy in its target group of patients, while the optimal duration for evaluating its efficacy is between 16 and 32 weeks.

Biologics in Asthma: A Molecular Perspective to Precision Medicine

Recent developments in therapeutic strategies have provided alternatives to corticosteroids as the cornerstone treatment for managing airway inflammation in asthma. The past two decades have witnessed a tremendous boost in the development of anti-cytokine monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the management of severe asthma. Novel biologics that target eosinophilic inflammation (or type 2, T2 inflammation) have been the most successful at treating asthma symptoms, though there are a few in the drug development pipeline for treating non-eosinophilic or T2-low asthma. There has been significant improvement in clinical outcomes for asthmatics treated with currently available monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E, anti-interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α subunit, anti-IL-5, anti-IL-5Rα, anti-IL-6, anti-IL-33, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). Despite these initiatives in precision medicine for asthma therapy, a significant disease burden remains, as evident from modest reduction of exacerbation rates, i.e., approximately 40-60%. There are numerous studies that highlight predictors of good responses to these biologics, but few have focused on those who fail to respond adequately despite targeted treatment. Phenotyping asthmatics based on blood eosinophils is proving to be inadequate for choosing the right drug for the right patient. It is therefore pertinent to understand the underlying immunology, and perhaps, carry out immune endotyping of patients before prescribing appropriate drugs. This review summarizes the immunology of asthma, the cytokines or receptors currently targeted, the possible mechanisms of sub-optimal responses, and the importance of determining the immune make-up of individual patients prior to prescribing mAb therapy, in the age of precision medicine for asthma.

Biological Treatments and Target Therapies for Pediatric Respiratory Medicine: Not Only Asthma

We present a description of pediatric pneumology biological medications and other target therapies. The article aims at introducing the importance of a molecular approach to improve treatments. The first item treated was T2-High asthma and its current biological treatment and prescribing indications to propose a flow-chart to guide the clinical choice. Molecular rationales of such treatments are used to introduce a more general description of the biological and molecular approach to target therapies application. We introduce a general interpretation approach to neutrophilic asthma using the molecular plausibility one in order to propose possible future treatments mainly targeting interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-17, IL-12, and IL-23. Indeed, cytokines can be excellent targets for several biological treatments. Downregulation of specific cytokines can be crucial in treating autoinflammatory and rheumatological diseases with a pulmonary involvement. Such conditions, although rare, should be early recognized as they can involve significant improvement with a properly targeted therapy. We face these conditions in a cherry-picking fashion picturing SAVI (STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy), CANDLE (chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperature), and COPA (coat proteins alpha syndrome) syndrome pulmonary involvement. Such examples are functional to introduce molecular-based approach for patients with rare conditions. Molecular plausibility can be highly valuable in treating patients with not-approved but possibly highly effective therapies. Due to the rarity of these conditions, we stress the concept of basket trials using the example of cytokinin-directed immunosuppressive treatment. Lastly, we provide an example of augmentative therapy using the alpha1 antitrypsin deficiency as a model. In summary, the article presents a collection of the most recent achievements and some possible future developments of target therapies for pediatric pulmonary conditions.

How to Choose the Correct Drug in Severe Pediatric Asthma

When a child with severe asthma (asthma defined clinically for the purposes of this review as wheeze, breathlessness, and chest tightness sometimes with cough) does not respond to treatment, it is important to be sure that an alternative or additional diagnosis is not being missed. In school age children, the next step is a detailed protocolized assessment to determine the nature of the problem, whether within the airway or related to co-morbidities or social/environmental factors, in order to personalize the treatment. For example, those with refractory difficult asthma due to persistent non-adherence may benefit from using budesonide and formoterol combined in a single inhaler [single maintenance and reliever treatment (SMART)] as both a reliever and preventer. For those with steroid-resistant Type 2 airway inflammation, the use of biologicals such as omalizumab and mepolizumab should be considered, but for mepolizumab at least, there is a paucity of pediatric data. Protocols are less well developed in preschool asthma, where steroid insensitive disease is much more common, but the use of two simple measurements, aeroallergen sensitization, and peripheral blood eosinophil count, allows the targeted use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). There is also increasing evidence that chronic airway infection may be important in preschool wheeze, increasing the possibility that targeted antibiotics may be beneficial. Asthma in the first year of life is not driven by Type 2 inflammation, so beyond avoiding prescribing ICSs, no evidence based recommendations can be made. In the future, we urgently need to develop objective biomarkers, especially of risk, so that treatment can be targeted effectively; we need to address the scandal of the lack of data in children compared with adults, precluding making evidence-based therapeutic decisions and move from guiding treatment by phenotypes, which will change as the environment changes, to endotype based therapy.

Advances and Challenges of Antibody Therapeutics for Severe Bronchial Asthma

Asthma is a disease that consists of three main components: airway inflammation, airway hyperresponsiveness, and airway remodeling. Persistent airway inflammation leads to the destruction and degeneration of normal airway tissues, resulting in thickening of the airway wall, decreased reversibility, and increased airway hyperresponsiveness. The progression of irreversible airway narrowing and the associated increase in airway hyperresponsiveness are major factors in severe asthma. This has led to the identification of effective pharmacological targets and the recognition of several biomarkers that enable a more personalized approach to asthma. However, the efficacies of current antibody therapeutics and biomarkers are still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. The establishment of an ideal phenotype classification that will predict the response of antibody treatment is urgently needed. Here, we review recent advancements in antibody therapeutics and novel findings related to the disease process for severe asthma.

2021 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of severe asthma

Advances in the understanding that severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease and in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of asthma, with the identification of different phenotypes and endotypes, have allowed new approaches for the diagnosis and characterization of the disease and have resulted in relevant changes in pharmacological management. In this context, the definition of severe asthma has been established, being differentiated from difficult-to-control asthma. These recommendations address this topic and review advances in phenotyping, use of biomarkers, and new treatments for severe asthma. Emphasis is given to topics regarding personalized management of the patient and selection of biologicals, as well as the importance of evaluating the response to treatment. These recommendations apply to adults and children with severe asthma and are targeted at physicians involved in asthma treatment. A panel of 17 Brazilian pulmonologists was invited to review recent evidence on the diagnosis and management of severe asthma, adapting it to the Brazilian reality. Each of the experts was responsible for reviewing a topic or question relevant to the topic. In a second phase, four experts discussed and structured the texts produced, and, in the last phase, all experts reviewed and approved the present manuscript and its recommendations.

A patient case demonstrating the efficacy of benralizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma refractory to omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment

Severe eosinophilic asthma is associated with a heavy burden and impact on daily living in patients experiencing uncontrolled symptoms, exacerbations, and treatment side effects. This case study reports a 49-year-old woman who presented to the severe asthma center with uncontrolled severe asthma despite multiple maintenance medications and omalizumab treatment. On presentation, the patient had experienced two to three hospitalizations per year, frequent asthma exacerbations requiring courses of oral corticosteroids, and symptoms that impacted her quality of life. Omalizumab was previously discontinued, and bronchial thermoplasty was also unsuccessful. The patient stabilized on injectable steroids and commenced mepolizumab once available on prescription. Owing to continued exacerbations and an inability to reduce steroid treatment without exacerbating, mepolizumab was discontinued and the patient commenced benralizumab (30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks for the first three doses, every 8 weeks thereafter) under the sole care of the severe asthma center. Benralizumab treatment resulted in a reduction in steroid treatment, zero asthma exacerbations, improved asthma control and lung function, and a marked improvement in activity levels that allowed the patient to participate in a long-distance running event. Additionally, 7 months following the initiation of benralizumab treatment, her blood eosinophils were completely depleted. These findings support the use of benralizumab in patients with refractory uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma despite previous biologic treatment with omalizumab and mepolizumab, as improvements in clinical and patient outcomes, including quality of life, can be achieved in difficult-to-treat cases.

•

Blood eosinophils reduced to zero in this severe eosinophilic asthma case study.

•

Benralizumab allowed a substantial reduction in maintenance corticosteroid use.

•

Benralizumab improved exacerbations, asthma control, and quality of life.

•

Benralizumab had efficacy after inadequate biologic therapy/bronchial thermoplasty.

•

A positive patient-clinician relationship can enhance patient outcomes.

Clinical Experience with Anti-IgE Monoclonal Antibody (Omalizumab) in Pediatric Severe Allergic Asthma-A Romanian Perspective

Background: Asthma is the most common chronic disease affecting children, with a negative impact on their quality of life. Asthma is often associated with comorbid allergic diseases, and its severity may be modulated by immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergen sensitization. Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, the first biological therapy approved to treat patients aged ≥6 years with severe allergic asthma. The primary objective of our study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of Omalizumab in Romanian children with severe allergic asthma. Methods: In this observational real-life study, 12 children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years (mean 12.4 years) with severe allergic asthma received Omalizumab as an add-on treatment. Asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and adverse events were evaluated at baseline and after the first year of treatment. Results: We observed general improvement in total asthma symptom scores and reduction in the rate of exacerbation of severe asthma. Omalizumab treatment was associated with improvement in the measures of lung function, and no serious adverse reactions were reported. FEV1 improved significantly after one year of treatment with Omalizumab [ΔFEV1 (% pred.) = 18.3], and [similarly, ΔMEF50 (%) = 25.8]. The mean severe exacerbation rate of asthma decreased from 4.1 ± 2.8 to 1.15 ± 0.78 (p < 0.0001) during the year of treatment with Omalizumab. Conclusions: This study showed that Omalizumab can be an effective and safe therapeutic option for Romanian children and adolescents with severe allergic asthma, providing clinically relevant information on asthma control and exacerbation rate in children and adolescents. The results demonstrated the positive effect of Omalizumab in young patients with asthma, starting from the first year of treatment.