A rational approach to compare and select biologic therapeutics in asthma

Choosing the right biologic treatment for individual patients with severe asthma - Lessons learnt from Picasso

Severe asthma represents a true challenge for clinicians from two basic perspectives, i.e.: a rational assessment of the underlying endo/phenotype and the subsequent selection of the best fitted (personalized) and effective treatment. Even though asthma is a heterogeneous disease, in the majority of therapy-compliant patients, it is possible to achieve (almost) complete disease control or even remission through conventional and quite uniform step-based pharmacotherapy, even without phenotyping. However, the absence of deeper assessment of individual patients revealed its handicap to its fullest extent during the first years of the new millennium upon the launch of biological therapeutics for patients with the most severe forms of asthma. The introduction of differentially targeted biologics into clinical practice became a challenge in terms of understanding and recognizing the etiopathogenetic heterogeneity of the asthmatic inflammation, pheno/endotyping, and, consequently, to choose the right biologic for the right patient. The answers to the following three questions should lead to correct identification of the dominant pheno/endotype: Is it really (severe) asthma? Is it eosinophilic asthma? If eosinophilic, is it (predominantly) allergen-driven? The identification of the best achievable and relevant alliance between endotypes and phenotypes ("euphenotypes") should be based not only on the assessment of the actual clinical characteristics and laboratory biomarkers, but more importantly, on the evaluation of their development and changes over time. In the current paper, we present a pragmatic three-step approach to severe asthma diagnosis and management.

Safety of dupilumab in T2 airways conditions: focus on eosinophilia across trials and real-life evidence

INTRODUCTION

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-4 receptor alpha subunit, effectively blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 mediated pathways. Its introduction has represented a significant advancement in the treatment of severe asthma and other Type 2 (T2) conditions, including nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. To date, Dupilumab has demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

The safety profile of dupilumab has been extensively studied, especially for its effects on blood eosinophil count. Transient eosinophil increase during treatment is typically insignificant from a clinical point of view and related to its mechanism of action. Rare cases of hyper-eosinophilia associated with clinical conditions like eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) and hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) have been reported. Those cases are often related to the drug's steroid-sparing effect or the natural trajectory of the underlying disease rather than a direct cause-effect relationship with dupilumab.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of hyper-eosinophilia during dupilumab treatment requires comprehensive diagnostic work-up and strict follow-up monitoring for early detection of systemic disease progression in order to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of an effective treatment. This approach highlights the importance of a personalized treatment.

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

The development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting specific components of the pathways relevant to asthma pathophysiology has revolutionized treatment of severe asthma both in adults and children and helped to further unravel the heterogeneity of this disease. However, the availability of multiple agents, often with overlapping eligibility criteria, creates a need for pragmatic guidance for specialists undertaking care of patients with severe asthma. In this review, we provide an overview of the data supporting the clinical efficacy of biologics in distinct asthma phenotypes/endotypes. We also focus on the role of biomarkers and treatable traits, including comorbidities, in the choice of asthma biologics, highlight which treatments have been demonstrated to be steroid sparing in corticosteroid dependent asthma, and provide practical guidance that can drive shared decision making on treatment choice with patients. In addition, we summarize what is known to date regarding long-term safety of these drugs, and lastly, discuss future directions in biologics research.

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

The emergence of biologic therapies for the management of asthma has been a revolutionary change in our capacity to manage this disease. Since the launch of omalizumab, several other biologics have been marketed or are close to being marketed, suggesting that a plethora of monoclonal antibodies can be expected in the coming years. This will facilitate the transition to the paradigm of personalized medicine, but on the other hand will decisively further complicate the choice of the most appropriate treatment, in the absence of reliable enough biological markers. For these reasons, along with the relatively short time of use with these treatments, there are recurrently arising questions for which there are not even moderately documented answers, and for which the only solution must be based, with all reservations, on the combination of indirect evidence and expertise. In this paper, we attempt to address such questions, providing relevant commentaries and considering the whole width of the evidence base.