Blood eosinophil count group shifts and kinetics in severe eosinophilic asthma

Biomarkers of immediate drug hypersensitivity

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) are a burden for patients and the health systems. This problem increases when taking into account that only a small proportion of patients initially labelled as allergic are finally confirmed after an allergological workup. The diverse nature of drugs involved will imply different interactions with the immunological system. Therefore, IDHRs can be produced by a wide array of mechanisms mediated by the drug interaction with specific antibodies or directly on effector target cells. These heterogeneous mechanisms imply an enhanced complexity for an accurate diagnosis and the identification of the phenotype and endotype at early stages of the reaction is of vital importance. Currently, several endophenotypic categories (type I IgE/non-IgE, cytokine release, Mast-related G-protein coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) or Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition and their associated biomarkers have been proposed. A precise knowledge of endotypes will permit to discriminate patients within the same phenotype, which is crucial in order to personalise diagnosis, future treatment and prevention to improve the patient's quality of life.

Immunoregulation of asthma by type 2 cytokine therapies: Treatments for all ages?

Asthma is classically considered to be a disease of type 2 immune dysfunction, since many patients exhibit the consequences of excess secretion of cytokines such as IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 concomitant with inflammation typified by eosinophils. Mouse and human disease models have determined that many of the canonical pathophysiologic features of asthma may be caused by these disordered type 2 immune pathways. As such considerable efforts have been made to develop specific drugs targeting key cytokines. There are currently available multiple biologic agents that successfully reduce the functions of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 in patients, and many improve the course of severe asthma. However, none are curative and do not always minimize the key features of disease, such as airway hyperresponsiveness. Here, we review the current therapeutic landscape targeting type 2 immune cytokines and discuss evidence of efficacy and limitations of their use in adults and children with asthma.

Type 2 Low Biomarker Stability and Exacerbations in Severe Uncontrolled Asthma

We investigated the stability of T2 low status, based on low levels of T2 biomarkers, and exacerbation rates in T2 low and non-T2 low asthma from clinical retrospective data of severe uncontrolled asthma patients. Knowledge of the T2 low biomarker profile is sparse and biomarker stability is uncharted. Secondary care patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and at least two blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measured for determination of type 2 inflammation status were evaluated from a follow-up period of 4 years. Patients were stratified into four groups: T2 low₁₅₀ (n = 31; BEC < 150 cells/µL and FeNO < 25 ppb), non-T2 low₁₅₀ (n = 138; BEC > 150 cells/µL and/or FeNO > 25 ppb), T2 low₃₀₀ (n = 66; BEC < 300 cells/µL and FeNO < 25 ppb), and non-T2 low₃₀₀ (n = 103; BEC > 300 cells/µL and/or FeNO > 25 ppb). Exacerbation rates requiring hospital care, stability of biomarker status, and cumulative OCS and ICS doses were assessed during follow-up. Among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, 18% (n = 31) were identified as T2 low₁₅₀, and 39% (n = 66) as T2 low₃₀₀. In these groups, the low biomarker profile was stable in 55% (n = 11) and 72% (n = 33) of patients with follow-up measures. Exacerbation rates were different between the T2 low and non-T2 low groups: 19.7 [95% CI: 4.3-45.6] in T2 low₁₅₀ vs. 8.4 [4.7-13.0] in non-T2 low₁₅₀ per 100 patient-years. BEC and FeNO are useful biomarkers in identifying T2 low severe uncontrolled asthma, showing a stable follow-up biomarker profile in up to 72% of patients. Repeated monitoring of these biomarkers is essential in identifying and treating patients with T2 low asthma.

Mild asthma: Lessons learned and remaining questions

Patients living with mild disease represent the largest proportion of asthma patients. There are significant challenges in proposing a definition that would best describe these patients, while also accurately identifying at-risk individuals. Current literature suggests considerable inflammatory and clinical heterogeneity within this group. Research has shown that these patients are at risk of poor control, exacerbations, lung function decline, and death. Despite conflicting data on its prevalence, eosinophilic inflammation appears to be a predictor of poorer outcomes in mild asthma. There is an immediate need to better understand phenotypic clusters in mild asthma. It is also important to understand factors that influence disease progression and remission, as it is evident that both vary in mild asthma. Guided by robust literature that supports inhaled corticosteroid-based strategies over short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliant regimens, the management of these patients has evolved considerably. Unfortunately, SABA use remains high in clinical practice despite strong advocacy from the Global Initiative for Asthma. Future mild asthma research should explore the role of biomarkers, develop prediction tools based on composite risk scores, and explore targeted therapies at least for at-risk individuals.

Clinical Implications of Longitudinal Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

The stability and variability of blood eosinophil counts (BECs) to phenotype patients with severe asthma is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc, longitudinal, pooled analysis of placebo-arm patients from 2 phase 3 studies evaluated the clinical implications of BEC stability and variability in moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

This analysis included patients from SIROCCO and CALIMA who received maintenance medium- to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists; 2:1 patients with BECs of 300 cells/μL or higher and less than 300 cells/μL were enrolled. The BECs were measured 6 times over 1 year in a centralized laboratory. Exacerbations, lung function, and Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 scores were documented across patients grouped by BEC (<300 cells/μL or ≥300 cells/μL) and variability (<80% or ≥80% BECs less than or greater than 300 cells/μL).

RESULTS

Among 718 patients, 42.2% (n = 303) had predominantly high, 30.9% (n = 222) had predominantly low, and 26.9% (n = 193) had variable BECs. Prospective exacerbation rates (mean ± SD) were significantly greater in patients with predominantly high (1.39 ± 2.20) and variable (1.41 ± 2.09) BECs versus predominantly low (1.05 ± 1.66) BECs. Similar results were observed for the number of exacerbations while on placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with variable BECs had intermittently high and low BECs, they experienced similar exacerbation rates to the predominantly high group, which were greater than those in the predominantly low group. A high BEC supports an eosinophilic phenotype in clinical settings without additional measurements, whereas a low BEC requires repeated measurements because it could reflect intermittently high or predominantly low BECs.

Asthma and Allergy: Unravelling a Tangled Relationship with a Focus on New Biomarkers and Treatment

Asthma is a major driver of health care costs across ages. Despite widely disseminated asthma-treatment guidelines and a growing variety of effective therapeutic options, most patients still experience symptoms and/or refractoriness to standard of care treatments. As a result, most patients undergo a further intensification of therapy to optimize symptom control with a subsequent increased risk of side effects. Raising awareness about the relevance of evaluating aeroallergen sensitizations in asthmatic patients is a key step in better informing clinical practice while new molecular tools, such as the component resolved diagnosis, may be of help in refining the relationship between sensitization and therapeutic recommendations. In addition, patient care should benefit from reliable, easy-to-measure and clinically accessible biomarkers that are able to predict outcome and disease monitoring. To attain a personalized asthma management and to guide adequate treatment decisions, it is of paramount importance to expand clinicians' knowledge about the tangled relationship between asthma and allergy from a molecular perspective. Our review explores the relevance of allergen testing along the asthma patient's journey, with a special focus on recurrent wheezing children. Here, we also discuss the unresolved issues regarding currently available biomarkers and summarize the evidence supporting the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin as promising biomarker.

Allergic and eosinophilic asthma in the era of biomarkers and biologics: similarities, differences and misconceptions

OBJECTIVE

Severe asthma is associated with substantial personal and economic burden; maintaining disease control is the key management goal. Increased understanding of asthma heterogeneity and development of type 2 (T2)-targeting biologics has substantially advanced disease management and outcomes; however, despite both being driven by T2 inflammation, allergic and eosinophilic asthma have different treatment recommendations. We sought to better understand the similarities and differences between allergic and eosinophilic asthma and highlight where misconceptions may arise.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles, pivotal trials, post hoc analyses, and asthma clinical guidelines sourced from PubMed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Sources reporting allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications, disease mechanisms, and biomarkers associated with treatment response.

RESULTS

This review highlights that severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma are both driven by T2 inflammation with eosinophils playing a cardinal role. Despite this overlap, treatment recommendations differ based on asthma classification. T2 cytokine gene expression is a reasonably well-established research tool, but not a well-established biomarker in clinical practice, unlike blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and immunoglobulin E; the clinical relevance of immunoglobulin E as a predictive biomarker remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

Asthma classifications that can be easily characterized at patient level to ensure accurate diagnosis, predict disease trajectory, and treatment response are required. The current dichotomy of allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications is likely too simplistic, given the similar eosinophil-mediated disease pathophysiology in both classifications. Our results provide future directions to guide clinically meaningful interpretation of asthma endophenotypes, which may improve understanding of severe asthma characterization and aid future advances in defining responders more precisely with personalized medicine approaches.

Management of bronchial asthma in 2021

To The Editor, The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2021 update was published on the 28th of April, 2021. There are significant changes, including treatment of mild asthma, the role of azithromycin, treatment of asthma in COVID-19 times, and role of biologics...

Use of biologics for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma: the age of personalized medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are multiple FDA-approved biologics to treat poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Given the heterogeneity of asthma and the lack of head-to-head data between biologics, selecting the best biologic for a patient can be difficult. This review summarizes the key literature to date, in hopes of facilitating an evidence-based approach to selecting the most appropriate biologic for patients with asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to unique mechanisms of action, there is increasing literature on predictors of response to each biologic, such as sensitizations to aeroallergens, peripheral eosinophil count, total serum IgE, and exhaled nitric oxide. Biologics available for asthma are also being increasingly studied in comorbid conditions with asthma, and this may facilitate selecting the most appropriate biologic for a patient. In the absence of head-to-head studies, there is literature of switching between biologics whenever necessary.

SUMMARY

The authors outline an approach to selecting a biologic based on various considerations, and hope this suggested approach facilitates selecting the biologic most suitable for each individual with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma.

Difficult-to-Treat Asthma Management in School-Age Children

The World Health Organization divides severe asthma into three categories: untreated severe asthma; difficult-to-treat severe asthma; and severe, therapy-resistant asthma. The apparent frequency of severe asthma in the general population of asthmatic children is probably around 5%. Upon referral of these children, it is important to evaluate the diagnosis of asthma carefully before modifying management and applying a long-term monitoring plan. Identification of pathophysiologic phenotypes using objective biomarkers is essential in our routine assessments of severe asthma. Although conventional pharmacologic approaches should be attempted first, there is growing recognition that children with difficult-to-treat asthma may have unique clinical phenotypes that may necessitate alternative treatment approaches including asthma biologics. These new medications, especially those with effects on multiple pathologic features of asthma, raise the hope that new treatment strategies could induce remission. Besides introducing new medications, the opportunity for closer monitoring is feasible with advances in digital health. Therefore, we have the opportunity to improve response to medications, individualize treatment, and monitor response along with potential steps to prevent 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.

Cost‑effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE

In patients with uncontrolled asthma, despite management with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the additional use of omalizumab and tiotropium is recommended. Omalizumab is an expensive medication and doubts arise as to whether the benefit of this drug outweighs the additional expense of the drug. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of three interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, and add-on therapy with omalizumab, were calculated over a 10-year time horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model showed that tiotropium was associated with lower cost than standard therapy and omalizumab (US$5590 vs. US$5693 vs. U$18,154 average annual cost per patient), and higher QALYs (11.8 vs. 11.3 vs. 11.9) average per patient), showing dominance respect to standard therapy. The probability that tiotropium provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma. 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.

Asthma phenotypes and endotypes: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a complex disorder characterized by expiratory airflow limitation, wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness and cough, which can vary over time and in intensity. Being highly heterogeneous, asthma was characterized and classified in several asthma phenotypes and endotypes from 1947 until today. The present systematic review aims to summarize and describe evidence that was published in the last ten years in the field of asthma phenotyping and endotyping.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The systematic review resumed high-quality evidence (clinical trials and randomized control trials) retrieved on MEDLINE and EMBASE databanks and involving adult asthmatic populations. Analyses of literature were conducted according to PRISMA and CASP guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Querying MEDLINE and EMBASE databanks, 5019 and 12261 entries were retrieved, respectively. Applying limitations for year of publication, age of participants, and type of publication, the search results were reduced to 98 and 132 articles, respectively. After data abstraction and resolution of duplications, only 50 articles were further evaluated. The research products were then classified first in macro-areas of interest (phenotypes or endotypes) and then in detailed micro-areas.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review overviews the principal findings available from high-quality literature in the last decade concerning asthma phenotypes and endotypes. Asthma has been described from different points of view, characterizing symptoms, microbiota composition, comorbidities, viral infections, and airway and/or systemic inflammatory status. The comprehension of precise mechanisms underlying asthma pathogenesis is thereby the basis for the development of novel therapeutic strategies, likely essential to the development of precision medicine.

Severe Adult Asthmas: Integrating Clinical Features, Biology, and Therapeutics to Improve Outcomes

Evaluation and effective management of asthma, and in particular severe asthma, remains at the core of pulmonary practice. Over the last 20-30 years, there has been increasing appreciation that "severe asthma" encompasses multiple different subgroups or phenotypes, each with differing presentations. Using clinical phenotyping, in combination with rapidly advancing molecular tools and targeted monoclonal antibodies (human knockouts), the understanding of these phenotypes, and our ability to treat them, have greatly advanced. Type-2 (T2)-high and -low severe asthmas are now easily identified. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophil counts can be routinely employed in clinical settings to identify these phenotypes and predict responses to specific therapies, meeting the initial goals of precision medicine. Integration of molecular signals, biomarkers, and clinical responses to targeted therapies has enabled identification of critical molecular pathways and, in certain phenotypes, advanced them to near-endotype status. Despite these advances, little guidance is available to determine which class of biologic is appropriate for a given patient, and current "breakthrough" therapies remain expensive and even inaccessible to many patients. Many of the most severe asthmas, with and without T2-biomarker elevations, remain poorly understood and treated. Nevertheless, conceptual understanding of "the severe asthmas" has evolved dramatically in a mere 25 years, leading to dramatic improvements in the lives of many.

Clinical Development of Mepolizumab for the Treatment of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: On the Path to Personalized Medicine

The development of mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, is an example of a clinical development program that evolved over time based on sound, basic scientific principles. Initial clinical data on the effects of mepolizumab on lung function in a general asthmatic population were disappointing. However, it became clear that mepolizumab may be more effective against other clinical endpoints, particularly asthma exacerbations, in patients with more severe disease. Furthermore, a developing understanding of asthma disease pathobiology led to the identification of an appropriate target population and predictive biomarker for mepolizumab treatment: patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and blood eosinophil count. Mepolizumab use provides clinically meaningful benefits in this target population, fulfilling an unmet need. This Clinical Commentary Review describes the clinical development of mepolizumab and details of how this program informed the development of other biologic therapies in patients with severe asthma. This account highlights how a personalized approach toward treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, supported by a large body of scientific evidence, ultimately led to new and effective treatments and improved patient outcomes.