Omalizumab Effectiveness by Biomarker Status in Patients with Asthma: Evidence From PROSPERO, A Prospective Real-World Study

Suboptimal Response to Biologics in Severe Asthma-A Marker of Humoral Immunodeficiencies

BACKGROUND

Asthmatic patients with antibody deficiencies (AD) have more severe disease and higher risk of exacerbations. No data exist about the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma (SA) patients with AD.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of biologics in SA patients with and without AD.

METHODS

A case-control real-life study was conducted including 68 patients divided into 2 groups: group 1 with SA-AD and group 2 with SA.

RESULTS

Treatment with biologics for 6 months was effective for decreasing the number of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits and improving the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score; biologics also proved a systemic corticosteroid-sparing effect. Despite benefits, the number of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and ED visits, the mean ACQ score, and the cumulative dose of systemic corticosteroids remain higher in group 1 than in group 2, with lower lung function parameters. The rates of responses in group 1 were inferior to those in group 2, with a decrease by ≥50% of exacerbation rate in 76% versus 97% of patients (P = .006), no hospitalization in 44% versus 91% of patients (P < .001), no ED visit in 56% versus 82% of patients (P = .018), a significant improvement of the ACQ score by ≥0.5 in 68% versus 100% of patients (P < .001), and an increase of forced expiratory volume in the first second by >10% in 32% versus 65% of patients (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evident benefits, SA patients with AD have suboptimal responses to biologics compared with those immunocompetent. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to optimize the management of these patients in practice.

Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Biologic effectiveness is often assessed as response, a term that eludes consistent definition. Identifying those most likely to respond in real-life has proven challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To explore definitions of biologic responders in adults with severe asthma and investigate patient characteristics associated with biologic response.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 21 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry. Changes in four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1-year period before and after biologic initiation in patients with a predefined level of prebiologic impairment. Responder cutoffs were 50% or greater reduction in exacerbation rate, 50% or greater reduction in long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose, improvement in one or more category in asthma control, and 100 mL or greater improvement in FEV1. Responders were defined using single and multiple domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic initiation response was examined by multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2,210 patients were included. Responder rate ranged from 80.7% (n = 566 of 701) for exacerbation response to 10.6% (n = 9 of 85) for a four-domain response. Many responders still exhibited significant impairment after biologic initiation: 46.7% (n = 206 of 441) of asthma control responders with uncontrolled asthma before the biologic still had incompletely controlled disease postbiologic initiation. Predictors of response were outcome-dependent. Lung function responders were more likely to have higher prebiologic FeNO (odds ratio = 1.20 for every 25-parts per billion increase), and shorter asthma duration (odds ratio = 0.81 for every 10-year increase in duration). Higher blood eosinophil count and the presence of type 2-related comorbidities were positively associated with higher odds of meeting long-term oral corticosteroid, control, and lung function responder criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings underscore the multimodal nature of response, showing that many responders experience residual symptoms after biologic initiation and that predictors of response vary according to the outcome assessed.

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.

Spanish Consensus on Remission in Asthma (REMAS)

The concept of "remission" in asthma has been around for a long time and it has been a controversial topic. Despite the attempts of some studies to characterize this entity, the discussion continues. In the case of asthma there is still no clear definition, either in terms of its meaning or the parameters that should be included or whether it should be divided into clinical or complete remission. To help defining these controversial concepts, SEPAR has advocated the multidisciplinary working group REMAS (REMission in ASthma). Following the Delphi methodology and with the involvement of more than 120 specialists in asthma management, this group has arrived at a consensus on the definitions of remission in asthma and establishing the criteria and characteristics that will be of use in future studies evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of treatments.

Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma

Background

To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.

Aim

To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.

Methods

This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.

Results

Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE.

Conclusions

The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

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.

Advancements in biologic therapy in eosinophilic asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma encompasses a spectrum of phenotypes often categorized into two groups- type 2 high (T2 high) and type 2 low (T2 low). T2 high includes atopic and eosinophilic presentations whereas T2 low is non-atopic, non-eosinophilic, and oft associated with neutrophilic inflammation. Eosinophilic asthma is often driven by IgE, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 and TSLP. This can lead to eosinophilic inflammatory response in the airways which in turn can be used as target for treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The article will focus on biologic therapy that is currently being used in eosinophilic asthma management in mainly the adult population including clinical trials and co-morbidities that can be treated using the same biologics. A review on asthma biologics for pediatric population has been reviewed elsewhere.

EXPERT OPINION

Biological therapy for asthma targeting the IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP pathways are shown to have benefit for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma, as exemplified in real-world studies. When choosing the right biological agent factors such as phenotype, comorbidities, and cost-effectiveness of the biologic agent must be taken into consideration.

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.

Phenotyping of Severe Asthma in the Era of Broad-Acting Anti-Asthma Biologics

Severe asthma is associated with significant morbidity and mortality despite the maximal use of inhaled corticosteroids and additional controller medications, and has a high economic burden. Biologic therapies are recommended for the management of severe, uncontrolled asthma to help to prevent exacerbations and to improve symptoms and health-related quality of life. The effective management of severe asthma requires consideration of clinical heterogeneity that is driven by varying clinical and inflammatory phenotypes, which are reflective of distinct underlying disease mechanisms. Phenotyping patients using a combination of clinical characteristics such as the age of onset or comorbidities and biomarker profiles, including blood eosinophil counts and levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide and serum total immunoglobulin E, is important for the differential diagnosis of asthma. In addition, phenotyping is beneficial for risk assessment, selection of treatment, and monitoring of the treatment response in patients with asthma. This review describes the clinical and inflammatory phenotypes of asthma, provides an overview of biomarkers routinely used in clinical practice and those that have recently been explored for phenotyping, and aims to assess the value of phenotyping in severe asthma management in the current era of biologics.

Eosinophil to lymphocyte ratio may predict OCS reduction and change in quality of life (AQLQ) resulting from asthma biological treatment

OBJECTIVES

Simple clinical parameters that could be helpful in choice of monoclonal antibodies and prediction of their effectiveness are being sought. The aim was to assess if neutrophil-to-lymphocyte, eosinophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios may predict outcomes of biologic therapy for severe asthma.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center study including severe asthma patients treated with three different biologics. The blood ratios were assessed at initiation of treatment (point 0) and after six months (point 1). The chi-square test was used to analyze differences in nominal variables. Quantitative variables were compared by Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

53 patients with severe asthma were included, among them 21 patients (40%) treated with omalizumab and 32 patients (60%) with mepolizumab or benralizumab. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios did not change during six-month-course of biological treatment. Eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was higher at the point 0 (p = 0.016) in the group treated with anti-eosinophils than in the omalizumab group and lower at the point 1 (p = 0.006). In the anti-eosinophil group this ratio decreased between points 0 and 1 (p < 0.001). In the omalizumab group there was an inverse correlation between the initial ratio and oral corticosteroid dose reduction (rs = -0,67). In the a/eos group there were significant correlations between initial ratio and age (rs = 0.36), and ACQ (rs = -0.4) and ACQ (rs = 0.41) measured at the point 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may predict oral corticosteroid dose reduction resulting from omalizumab treatment and change in quality of life and asthma control resulting from anti-IL-5 and IL-5R treatment.

Effectiveness of omalizumab across different dosing regimens in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

For patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab is approved for subcutaneous administration according to a recommended dosing table based on weight and total immunoglobulin E (IgE) level. The aim of this analysis was to assess asthma outcomes including quality of life in patients with allergic asthma initiated on omalizumab in the PROSPERO trial; patients were stratified by where their IgE and body weight fell on the approved dosing table. Patient groups were defined as Inside Dosing Table: patients whose IgE and weight fell within the approved dosing table (n = 506); Insufficient Data to Recommend a Dose: patients who fell into the section of the approved dosing table where not enough clinical data were available to make dosing recommendations (n = 72); and Outside Dosing Table: patients who fell outside the approved dosing table due to baseline IgE and/or weight (n = 209). Overall, asthma and quality of life outcomes were improved after omalizumab initiation for both patients who fall within the recommended dosing table or those who fall outside the recommended dosing table. Our results suggest that omalizumab treatment may be effective in a wide range of patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01922037.

Eosinophilic Asthma: Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Horizons

Asthma is a prevalent chronic non-communicable disease, affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. It is characterized by significant airway inflammation, hyperresponsiveness, obstruction, and remodeling. Eosinophilic asthma, a subtype of asthma, involves the accumulation of eosinophils in the airways. These eosinophils release mediators and cytokines, contributing to severe airway inflammation and tissue damage. Emerging evidence suggests that targeting eosinophils could reduce airway remodeling and slow the progression of asthma. To achieve this, it is essential to understand the immunopathology of asthma, identify specific eosinophil-associated biomarkers, and categorize patients more accurately based on the clinical characteristics (phenotypes) and underlying pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). This review delves into the role of eosinophils in exacerbating severe asthma, exploring various phenotypes and endotypes, as well as biomarkers. It also examines the current and emerging biological agents that target eosinophils in eosinophilic asthma. By focusing on these aspects, both researchers and clinicians can advance the development of targeted therapies to combat eosinophilic pathology in severe asthma.

Biologics for asthma and risk of pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

Modification of the immune system with biologics raises theoretical concerns about the risk of infections but it is still unclear whether currently routinely used biologics in severe asthma may facilitate the development of pneumonia. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab are associated with pneumonia in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A retrospective disproportionality analysis was performed using adverse event (AE) reports submitted to FAERS from January 2020 to September 30, 2023. MedDRA was used to identify infections and infestations and then pneumonia cases. ROR and PRR were used to measure disproportionality.

RESULTS

The percentage of reported cases of pneumonia compared to infections and infestations was highest for mepolizumab (36.8%), followed by omalizumab (32.6%), benralizumab (19.2%) and dupilumab (5.7%). We found a moderate or strong signal for increased risk of pneumonia with mepolizumab (ROR = 3.74, 95%CI 3.50-4.00), omalizumab (ROR = 3.26, 95%CI 3.06-3.49) and benralizumab (ROR = 2.65, 95%CI 2.49-2.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab, omalizumab and benralizumab, but not dupilumab, were associated with high odds of reporting pneumonia. Our results represent only potential associations between these biologics and pneumonia but not causality. The nature of the FAERS database is such that the cause of the reported events is uncertain. Therefore, we can only roughly estimate the incidence of AEs by the signal strength (ROR value). Nevertheless, although causality could not be assessed, the signal from our study is interesting. We believe it deserves to be further substantiated by real-world studies with robust designs.

Personalized Medicine in Severe Asthma: From Biomarkers to Biologics

Severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous clinical condition presented as chronic inflammation of the airways. Conventional treatments are mainly focused on symptom control; however, there has been a shift towards personalized medicine. Identification of different phenotypes driven by complex pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes), especially those driven by type-2 (T2) inflammation, has led to improved treatment outcomes. Combining biomarkers with T2-targeting monoclonal antibodies is crucial for developing personalized treatment strategies. Several biological agents, including anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin/interleukin-4, have been approved for the treatment of severe asthma. These biological therapies have demonstrated efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, lowering eosinophil count, improving lung function, diminishing oral corticosteroid use, and improving the quality of life in selected patients. Severe asthma management is undergoing a profound transformation with the introduction of ongoing and future biological therapies. The availability of novel treatment options has facilitated the adoption of phenotype/endotype-specific approaches and disappearance of generic interventions. The transition towards precision medicine plays a crucial role in meticulously addressing the individual traits of asthma pathobiology. An era of tailored strategies has emerged, allowing for the successful targeting of immune-inflammatory responses that underlie uncontrolled T2-high asthma. These personalized approaches hold great promise for improving the overall efficacy and outcomes in the management of severe asthma. This article comprehensively reviews currently available biological agents and biomarkers for treating severe asthma. With the expanding repertoire of therapeutic options, it is becoming increasingly crucial to comprehend the influencing factors, understand the pathogenesis, and track treatment progress in severe asthma.

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

Advances in pathophysiological understanding and the elucidation of a type 2 inflammatory signature with interleukins 4, 5 and 13 at its center have led to the development of targeted antibody therapies that are now approved for the treatment of severe asthma. In suitable patients, these medications reduce asthma exacerbations and the necessity for oral corticosteroids, improve asthma control, quality of life and lung function. A proportion of patients with severe asthma may even achieve remission under ongoing biologic therapy. Type-2 inflammatory comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe asthma, sharing overlapping pathophysiology and may similarly respond to biologic treatment. Here, we give an overview of the six biologic therapies currently approved for severe asthma and review randomized clinical trials and real-life studies in asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. We also discuss selection of biologics according to licensing criteria, asthma phenotype and biomarkers, monitoring of treatment response and proceedings in case of insufficient outcome under therapy.

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.

[Biologics in severe childhood asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma in children remains relatively rare. It is no longer considered as a single disease but rather as a syndrome corresponding to different phenotypes and distinct pathophysiological pathways. Various biomarkers can contribute to phenotyping, essentially specific IgE test results, blood eosinophil counts, the exhaled fraction of NO (FeNO) assay, as well as deep lung biomarkers from induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage or bronchial biopsy.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

In children, the biologics currently approved for severe asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab and dupilumab from the age of 6, and tezepelumab from the age of 12.

PERSPECTIVES

Benralizumab and tezepelumab offer promising perspectives and a pediatric extension could be of interest in future treatment of severe pediatric asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on physiopathological mechanisms, biologics represent a new and promising approach in the treatment of asthma. That said, the long-term efficacy and impact of these treatments on the natural history of the disease require further investigation. It is of paramount importance to take into account the specificities of pediatric asthma and, more particularly, to conduct clinical trials in younger patients.

[Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma]

Severe asthma affects 3%-10% of the world's population, according to estimates by the Global Initiative for ASTHMA (GINA). Allergic asthma is one of the most common phenotypes of severe asthma and it is characterized by allergen-induced type 2 inflammation in which immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a key mediator, making it an important therapeutic target. The introduction of targeted biological therapies or treatments has entered the management for severe asthma in the era of precision medicine, and the goal of treatment is clinical remission of the disease. There is a significant percentage of patients with severe allergic asthma who do not respond to treatments and whose symptoms are not controlled. In this paper, a group of experts in the management of severe allergic asthma reviewed and evaluated the most relevant evidence regarding the pathophysiology and phenotypes of severe allergic asthma, the role of IgE in allergic inflammation, allergen identification, techniques, biomarkers and diagnostic challenges, available treatments and strategies for disease management, with a special focus on biological treatments. From this review, recommendations were developed and validated through a Delphi consensus process with the aim of offering improvements in the management of severe allergic asthma to the professionals involved and identifying the unmet needs in the management of this pathology.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Asthma Phenotypes in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Asthma is a widespread disease affecting approximately 300-million people globally. This condition leads to significant morbidity, mortality, and economic strain worldwide. Recent clinical and laboratory research advancements have illuminated the immunological factors contributing to asthma. As of now, asthma is understood to be a heterogeneous disease. Personalized medicine involves categorizing asthma by its endotypes, linking observable characteristics to specific immunological mechanisms. Identifying these endotypic mechanisms is paramount in accurately profiling patients and tailoring therapeutic approaches using innovative biological agents targeting distinct immune pathways. This article presents a synopsis of the key immunological mechanisms implicated in the pathogenesis and manifestation of the disease's phenotypic traits and individualized treatments for severe asthma subtypes.

Personalized and Precision Medicine in Asthma and Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Role of T2 Target Therapy

The role of type 2 inflammation has been progressively associated with many diseases, including severe asthma, atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and, recently, eosinophilic esophagitis. Despite this, the association between asthma and esophagitis is still poorly known, and this is probably because of the low prevalence of each disease and the even lower association between them. Nonetheless, observations in clinical trials and, subsequently, in real life, have allowed researchers to observe how drugs acting on type 2 inflammation, initially developed and marketed for severe asthma, could be effective also in treating eosinophilic esophagitis. For this reason, clinical trials specifically designed for the use of drugs targeted to type 2 inflammation were also developed for eosinophilic esophagitis. The results of clinical trials are presently promising and envisage the use of biologicals that are also likely to be employed in the field of gastroenterology in the near future. This review focuses on the use of biologicals for type 2 inflammation in cases of combined severe asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Omalizumab for Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in real-world clinical setting: a prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

This single-centre, prospective, observational study included Chinese patients aged 14-75 years with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma according to the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. Omalizumab was administered subcutaneously, and the investigator collected real-world data on exacerbations, steroid exposure, pulmonary function and laboratory assessments at weeks 16, 24, 52, 104 and 156 after treatment initiation. The primary outcome was reduced exacerbations, measured as the proportion of patients with exacerbations in the year following omalizumab initiation. Bowker's test for paired proportions was performed to compare exacerbation rates before and after treatment initiation. A generalised linear mixed model was used to compare the number of exacerbations.

RESULTS

The mean treatment duration was 46.6 weeks for the full analysis set (n=398). The proportion of patients with exacerbations in the year before and after omalizumab initiation was 80.4% (181/225) and 18.7% (42/225) (difference: -61.8%, 95% CI -68.5 to -54.0, p<0.0001), respectively. At week 52, 67.4% of patients discontinued oral corticosteroids, and 19.5% reduced inhaled corticosteroids. The Asthma Control Test scores increased by 4.6 at week 52 from baseline (p<0.001). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s increased by 11.2% and 9.0% at weeks 24 and 52, respectively, from baseline (p<0.01). Injection site reactions (5.2%) were the most frequently reported adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical practice, omalizumab treatment remarkably reduced exacerbations in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Omalizumab reduced the use of oral corticosteroids and improved asthma control and pulmonary function.

Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Asthma is the most frequent chronic disease of childhood, affecting up to 20% of children worldwide. The main guidelines on asthma maintenance therapy in pediatrics suggest different approaches and describe different stages of asthma to determine the most appropriate treatment. This project aims to summarize the most recent evidence regarding maintenance therapy for asthma in children and adolescents. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was asked clinical questions regarding the treatment of children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, 10 clinical questions were addressed, and the search strategy included accessing electronic databases and a manual search of gray literature published in the last 25 years. After data extraction and narrative synthesis of results, recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Results showed that the choice of medication depends on the severity of the child's asthma, phenotype, age, preference, and individual factors. In addition to medications, the identification of comorbidities and modifiable factors is crucial to obtaining good control. Asthma in children is heterogeneous, and its evolution varies over time. Since most recommendations for asthma management in childhood are extrapolated from clinical studies performed in adults, more clinical trials specifically designed for young children should be conducted.

Severe asthma ILC2s demonstrate enhanced proliferation that is modified by biologics

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Type 2 (T2) innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) contribute to airway inflammation and disease in asthma. We hypothesize that ILC2s isolated from people with severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma would exhibit an enhanced T2 inflammatory activity that would be altered following treatment with mepolizumab and omalizumab. We compare peripheral blood (PB) isolated ILC2's proliferative capacity, IL-5 and IL-13 secretion and phenotype between healthy without asthma (HC), non-asthma allergic (NAA), mild asthma (MA) and severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma (SA) subjects. We then determined the impact of 6 months treatment with either mepolizumab or omalizumab on ILC2s physiology of SA subjects.

METHODS

ILC2s were sorted and cultured in the presence of IL-2, IL-25, IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) for 14 days. ILC2s proliferation, phenotypes and functions were assessed using flowcytometry. The ILC2s response was then reassessed following clinically successful treatment of SA subjects with mepolizumab and omalizumab.

RESULTS

SA ILC2s demonstrated increased proliferative capacity, TSLP receptor (TSLPR), GATA3 and NFATc1 protein expressions and increased IL-5 and IL-13 release. ILC2s were also capable of releasing IL-6 in response to stimulation. Mepolizumab treatment reduced ILC2s proliferative capacity and expression of TSLPR, GATA3 and NFATc1. Both mepolizumab and omalizumab were associated with reduced ILC2s release of IL-5 and IL-13, only mepolizumab reduced IL-6.

CONCLUSION

ILC2s from severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma demonstrated an active phenotype typified by increased proliferation, TSLPR, GATA3 and NFATc1 expression and increased IL-5, IL-13 and IL-6 release. Mepolizumab reduced markers of ILC2s activation.

Revisiting asthma pharmacotherapy: where do we stand and where do we want to go?

Several current guidelines/strategies outline a treatment approach to asthma, which primarily consider the goals of improving lung function and quality of life and reducing symptoms and exacerbations. They suggest a strategy of stepping up or down treatment, depending on the patient's overall current asthma symptom control and future risk of exacerbation. While this stepwise approach is undeniably practical for daily practice, it does not always address the underlying mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease. In the last decade, there have been attempts to improve the treatment of severe asthma, such as the addition of a long-acting antimuscarinic agent to the traditional inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist treatment and the introduction of therapies targeting key cytokines. However, despite such strategies several unmet needs in this population remain, motivating research to identify novel targets and develop improved therapeutic and/or preventative asthma treatments. Pending the availability of such therapies, it is essential to re-evaluate the current conventional "one-size-fits-all" approach to a more precise asthma management. Although challenging, identifying "treatable traits" that contribute to respiratory symptoms in individual patients with asthma may allow a more pragmatic approach to establish more personalised therapeutic goals.

Real-World Effectiveness Study of Benralizumab for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: ZEPHYR 2

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact.

METHODS

Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/μL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index.

RESULTS

There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/μL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.

Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review

Background

Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma.

Methods

We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken.

Results

13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards.

Conclusions

This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.

Cytokine-targeted therapies for asthma and COPD

Asthma affects over 300 million people worldwide and its prevalence is increasing. COPD is the third leading cause of death globally. Asthma and COPD are complex inflammatory diseases of the airways in which impaired host defences lead to increased susceptibility to pathogens, pollutants and allergens. There is a constant interplay between host and the environment. Environmental exposures can alter the lung microbiome and influence the development of sensitisation by disrupting normal immunoregulation. The underlying airway inflammation in severe asthma is heterogeneous, with upregulation of type 2 cytokines in most cases but increased neutrophilic inflammation and activated T-helper 17 mediated immunity in others. COPD may also comprise several different phentoypes that are driven by different molecular mechanisms or endotypes. This disease heterogeneity is affected by comorbidities, treatments and environmental exposures. Recent intervention trials have shed light on the pathways beyond type 2 inflammation that can lead to beneficial outcomes versus potentially deleterious effects. We have made a great deal of progress over the last 10 years in terms of immunology and the pathophysiology of asthma and this has led to the development of novel treatments and major improvements in severe asthma outcomes. In COPD, however, no targeted treatments have demonstrated great improvements. This article reviews the mechanism of action and efficacy of the available biologics in asthma and COPD.

Evidence-Based Approach of Biologic Therapy in Bronchial Asthma

The emergence of biologic agents in the treatment of bronchial asthma has a wide impact on improving quality of life, reducing morbidity, and overall health care utilization. These therapies usually work by targeting specific inflammatory pathways involving type 2 inflammation and are particularly effective in severe eosinophilic asthma. Various randomized controlled trials have shown their effectiveness by reducing exacerbation rates and decreasing required glucocorticoid dosages. One of the relatively newer agents, tezepelumab, targets thymic stromal lymphoprotein and has proven its efficacy in patients independent of asthma phenotype and serum biomarker levels. This article reviews the pathophysiologic mechanism behind biologic therapy and offers an evidence-based discussion related to the indication, benefits, and adverse effects of such therapies.

Biologic drugs in the treatment of chronic inflammatory pulmonary diseases: recent developments and future perspectives

Chronic inflammatory diseases of the lung are some of the leading causes of mortality and significant morbidity worldwide. Despite the tremendous burden these conditions put on global healthcare, treatment options for most of these diseases remain scarce. Inhaled corticosteroids and beta-adrenergic agonists, while effective for symptom control and widely available, are linked to severe and progressive side effects, affecting long-term patient compliance. Biologic drugs, in particular peptide inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies show promise as therapeutics for chronic pulmonary diseases. Peptide inhibitor-based treatments have already been proposed for a range of diseases, including infectious disease, cancers and even Alzheimer disease, while monoclonal antibodies have already been implemented as therapeutics for a range of conditions. Several biologic agents are currently being developed for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and pulmonary sarcoidosis. This article is a review of the biologics already employed in the treatment of chronic inflammatory pulmonary diseases and recent progress in the development of the most promising of those treatments, with particular focus on randomised clinical trial outcomes.

Omalizumab for the treatment of patients with severe allergic asthma with immunoglobulin E levels above >1500 IU/mL

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) plays a critical role in the allergen-initiated inflammatory pathway and thus serves as a viable therapeutic target in allergic or IgE-mediated diseases such as asthma. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE biologic, has been approved in the United States (US, 2003) and in the European Union (EU, 2005) as an add-on therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma and severe allergic asthma (SAA) aged 6 years and older. The dose and frequency of omalizumab are adjusted based on the patient's body weight and baseline IgE levels, as recommended by its dosing tables. Currently, these dosing recommendations are limited to patients with baseline IgE levels of up to 1500 IU/mL in the European Union and 700 IU/mL in the United States. However, many patients with SAA have IgE levels >1500 IU/mL, highlighting an unmet need. This review presents the current evidence on the treatment benefits of omalizumab in patients with IgE levels >1500 IU/mL. The findings from the reviewed studies which included >3000 patients support the efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations, and improving asthma control, lung function, and quality of life in patients with severe asthma having IgE levels beyond the current dosing range. Omalizumab was well-tolerated in these patients, with no new safety signals. In addition, high IgE levels (>1500 IU/mL) are also reported in several comorbidities of asthma (allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis [ABPA], food allergy, and nasal polyposis) and omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in these indications. These data suggest that omalizumab may be considered for administration in SAA patients, with high IgE levels outside the current dosing tables. A detailed assessment of patients with high IgE levels is needed before deciding on the optimal treatment approach. A management algorithm for SAA patients with IgE >1500 IU/mL is proposed in this review and a suggestion to follow the Delphi consensus is advised.

Comparison of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacy in patients with atopic and eosinophilic "Overlap" severe asthma: Biological agent preference in atopic-eosinophilic severe asthma

Approximately 1-third of patients with severe asthma are candidates for both omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment. We aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric and inflammatory efficacy of these 2 biologics in atopic and eosinophilic "overlap" severe asthma patients. In our 3-center retrospective cross-sectional observational study, the data of patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 16 weeks to treat severe asthma were examined. Atopic (perennial allergen sensitivity and total IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL) and eosinophilic (blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL in admission; or ≥300 cells/µL in the previous year) patients with asthma suitable for both biologics were included in the study. Post-treatment changes in the asthma control test (ACT) score, number of attacks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and eosinophil count were compared. The rates of any biological responder patient were compared according to whether they had high eosinophil counts (≥500 cells/µL vs <500 cells/µL). Total of 181 patients data were evaluated, of the 74 atopic and eosinophilic overlap patients included in the study, 56 were receiving omalizumab and 18 were receiving mepolizumab. When omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacies were compared, there was no difference in terms of the reduction in attacks and improvement in ACT. The decrease in eosinophil levels in patients in the mepolizumab arm was significantly higher than that in patients in the omalizumab arm (46.3% vs 87.8%; P < .001). The improvement in FEV1 was greater with mepolizumab treatment, although the difference was not significant (215 mL vs 380 mL; P = .053). It has been shown that having high eosinophil counts does not affect the clinical and spirometric responder patient rates for either biological condition. The success of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment is similar in patients with atopic and eosinophilic overlap with severe asthma. However, because the baseline patient inclusion criteria are not compatible, head-to-head studies comparing both biological agents are required.

Update on the Role of FeNO in Asthma Management

Asthma is a heterogenous disorder characterized by presence of different phenotypes and endotypes. Up to 10% of the individuals suffer from severe asthma and are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a cost-effective, point of care biomarker that is used to detect type 2 airway inflammation. Guidelines have proposed to measure FeNO as an adjunct to diagnostic evaluation in individuals with suspected asthma and to monitor airway inflammation. FeNO has lower sensitivity, suggesting that it may not be a good biomarker to rule out asthma. FeNO may also be used to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids, predict adherence and deciding on biologic therapy. Higher levels of FeNO have been associated with lower lung function and increased risk for future asthma exacerbations and its predictive value increases when combined with other standard measurements of asthma assessment.

Influence of Genetics on the Response to Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma with an Allergic Phenotype

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma with an allergic phenotype. Its effectiveness could be influenced by clinical variables and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in one or more of the genes involved in the mechanism of action and process of response to omalizumab, and these could be used as predictive biomarkers of response. We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma treated with omalizumab in a tertiary hospital. Satisfactory response after 12 months of treatment was defined as (1) Reduction ≥ 50% of exacerbations or no exacerbations, (2) Improvement of lung function ≥ 10% FEV1, and (3) Reduction ≥ 50% of OCS courses or no OCS. Polymorphisms in the FCER1A (rs2251746, rs2427837), FCER1B (rs1441586, rs573790, rs1054485, rs569108), C3 (rs2230199), FCGR2A (rs1801274), FCGR2B (rs3219018, rs1050501), FCGR3A (rs10127939, rs396991), IL1RL1 (rs1420101, rs17026974, rs1921622), and GATA2 (rs4857855) genes were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using TaqMan probes. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were recruited. After 12 months of treatment, the variables associated with a reduction in exacerbations were the absence of polyposis (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95-19.63), IL1RL1 rs17026974-AG (OR = 19.07; 95% CI = 1.27-547), and IL1RL1 rs17026974-GG (OR = 16.76; 95% CI = 1.22-438.76). Reduction in oral corticosteroids (OCS) was associated with age of starting omalizumab treatment (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and blood eosinophil levels > 300 cells/µL (OR = 2.93; 95% CI = 1.01-9.29). Improved lung function showed a relationship to the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR = 12.16; 95% CI = 2.45-79.49), FCGR2B rs3219018-C (OR = 8.6; 95% CI = 1.12-117.15), GATA2 rs4857855-T (OR = 15.98; 95% CI = 1.52-519.57) and FCGR2A rs1801274-G (OR = 13.75; 95% CI = 2.14-142.68; AG vs. AA and OR = 7.46; 95% CI = 0.94-89.12; GG vs. AA). Meeting one response criterion was related to FCER1A rs2251746-TT (OR = 24; 95% CI = 0.77-804.57), meeting two to age of asthma diagnosis (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88-0.99), and meeting all three to body mass index (BMI) < 25 (OR = 14.23; 95% CI = 3.31-100.77) and C3 rs2230199-C (OR = 3; 95% CI = 1.01-9.92). The results of this study show the possible influence of the polymorphisms studied on the response to omalizumab and the clinical benefit that could be obtained by defining predictive biomarkers of treatment response.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes

(1) Background: Over the past 20 years, monoclonal antibodies have been developed for the treatment of severe asthma, with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to define their safety and efficacy. The growing availability of biologics, which until now have only been available for T2-high asthma, has been further enriched by the arrival of tezepelumab. (2) Methods: This review aims to evaluate the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in RCTs of biologics for severe asthma to understand how they could potentially predict outcomes and how they can help differentiate between available options. (3) Results: The studies reviewed demonstrated that all biologic agents are effective in improving asthma control, especially with regard to reducing exacerbation rates and OCS use. As we have seen, in this regard, there are few data on omalizumab and none yet on tezepelumab. In analysing exacerbations and average doses of OCSs, pivotal studies on benralizumab have enrolled more seriously ill patients. Secondary outcomes, such as improvement in lung function and quality of life, showed better results-especially for dupilumab and tezepelumab. (4) Conclusion: Biologics are all effective, albeit with important differences. What fundamentally guides the choice is the patient's clinical history, the endotype represented by biomarkers (especially blood eosinophils), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis).

Exploring the Interaction between Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Biologic Treatment in Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a biomarker of airway inflammation associated with airway hyper-responsiveness and type-2 inflammation. Its role in the management of severe asthmatic patients undergoing biologic treatment, as well as FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment, is largely unexplored.

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate published data contributing to the following areas: (1) FeNO as a predictive biomarker of response to biologic treatment; (2) the influence of biologic treatment in FeNO values; (3) FeNO as a biomarker for the prediction of exacerbations in patients treated with biologics.

METHODS

The systematic search was conducted on the Medline database through the Pubmed search engine, including all studies from 2009 to the present.

RESULTS

Higher baseline values of FeNO are associated with better clinical control in patients treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab. FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment highlights a clear reduction in FeNO values in patients treated with anti-IL4/13 and anti-IL13, as well as in patients treated with tezepelumab. During the treatment, FeNO may help to predict clinical worsening and to differentiate eosinophilic from non-eosinophilic exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher baseline FeNO levels appear to be associated with a greater benefit in terms of clinical control and reduction of exacerbation rate, while FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment remains a largely unexplored issue since few studies have investigated it as a primary outcome. FeNO remains detectable during biologic treatment, but its potential utility as a biomarker of clinical control is still unclear and represents an interesting research area to be developed.

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.

Exhaled nitric oxide in asthma: from diagnosis to management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) is a noninvasive marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation, therefore, highly informative in asthma. Although FENO measurement is a potentially accessible tool to many physicians, recommendations regarding its clinical utility in diagnosing or tailoring treatment have not reached the expected diffusion. More recently FENO emerged as a biomarker for type-2 asthma phenotyping and a predictor of response to biologics.

RECENT FINDINGS

The physiological discoveries and relevant acquisitions in clinical practice regarding FENO in asthma are presented. The FENO story draw a wavy path, characterized by promising findings, exciting confirmations and periods of low visibility. FENO emerged as a tool to increase the probability of asthma diagnosis. FENO predicts response to inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS), favoring the development of tailored treatment strategies and unrevealing nonadherence to ICS in difficult-to-treat or uncontrolled asthma. Finally, FENO was associated with a more severe phenotype and became a consolidated biomarker of type-2 inflammation.

SUMMARY

FENO demonstrated to be a noninvasive and very reproducible test, encompassing many applications in the field of asthma management. Its routinely use, according to international guidelines, may improve the quality of patient assistance, from difficult-to-treat cases to biologic monitoring.

Specific IgE Response and Omalizumab Responsiveness in Severe Allergic Asthma

Objective

Omalizumab has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens and/or severe pollinosis through inhibition of IgE-dependent allergic response. When considering the "one airway, one disease" concept, sensitization to pollen could predict responsiveness to omalizumab. This study aimed to assess whether the pretreatment specific IgE response could be a predictor of responsiveness to omalizumab in severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 41 adult patients with severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens (27 females; mean age 59 years) who had completed 52-week omalizumab treatment were enrolled. The Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness was performed, and demographic characteristics and the positive ratios of specific IgE responses classified into five subgroups (pollen, dust mite, house dust, mold, and animal dander) were compared between responders and non-responders. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of responsiveness to omalizumab.

Results

Thirty-one patients (76%) were identified as responders. The number of sensitized aeroallergen subgroups and sensitization to pollens were significantly higher in responders than in non-responders (both p<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that sensitization to pollen (OR = 8.41, p = 0.02) was independently associated with the effectiveness of omalizumab.

Conclusion

Pretreatment serum pollen-specific IgE could be a predictor of responsiveness to omalizumab.

Clinical Trial Design Innovations for Precision Medicine in Asthma

Severe asthma is a spectrum disorder with numerous subsets, many of which are defined by clinical history and a general predisposition for T2 inflammation. Most of the approved therapies for severe asthma have required clinical trial designs with population enrichment for exacerbation frequency and/or elevation of blood eosinophils. Moving beyond this framework will require trial designs that increase efficiency for studying nondominant subsets and continue to improve upon biomarker signatures. In addition to reviewing the current literature on biomarker-informed trials for severe asthma, this chapter will also review the advantages of master protocols and adaptive design methods for establishing the efficacy of new interventions in prospectively defined subsets of patients. The incorporation of methods that allow for data collection outside of traditional study visits at academic centers, called remote decentralized trial design, is a growing trend that may increase diversity in study participation and allow for enhanced resiliency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, reaching the goals of precision medicine in asthma will require increased emphasis on effectiveness studies. Recent advances in real-world data utilization from electronic health records are also discussed with a view toward pragmatic trial designs that could also incorporate the evaluation of biomarker signatures.

Heterogeneity of Treatment Response to Asthma

The definition of asthma has evolved over the years with significant heterogeneity of the disease increasingly recognized. Complex gene and environment interactions result in different pheno-endotypes of asthma that respond differently to the same treatment. Multiple studies have revealed pharmacogenomic and endophenotypic factors that predict treatment response to standard therapies for asthma. Recent advances in biologic medications have enabled a more tailored approach to the care of patients with moderate to severe asthma, taking into consideration clinical traits and measurable biomarkers. This chapter will review heterogeneity in treatment response to different medication classes for asthma: inhaled and systemic corticosteroids, beta-2 agonists, leukotriene modifiers, muscarinic antagonists, macrolides, and biologics.

Defining response to therapy with biologics in severe asthma: from global evaluation to super response and remission

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, monoclonal antibodies targeting Type-2 inflammatory pathways have been developed for severe asthma treatment. However, even when patients are carefully selected, the response to treatment varies.

AREAS COVERED

Different studies have evaluated response to therapy with biologics such as exacerbation reduction, symptom improvement, pulmonary function increase, improvement in QoL, or decrease of oral corticosteroids, showing that all patients do not respond to all disease aspects and leading to an extensive debate regarding the definition of response.

EXPERT OPINION

Assessing response to therapy is of great importance, but since there is no uniform definition of treatment response, the recognition of patients who really benefit from these therapies remains an unmet need. In the same context, identifying non-responding patients in which biologic therapy should be switched or substituted by alternative treatment options is of paramount importance. In this review, we present the road trip of the definition of therapeutic response to biologics in severe asthmatics by presenting the current relevant medical literature. We also present the suggested predictors of response, with an emphasis on the so-called super-responders. Finally, we discuss the recent insights regarding asthma remission as a feasible treatment goal and provide a simple algorithm for the evaluation of response.

Role of clinical biomarkers in predicting the effectiveness of omalizumab

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether baseline clinical biomarkers and characteristics can be used to predict the responsiveness of omalizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients with severe asthma who received omalizumab treatment and collected their baseline data and relevant laboratory examination results along with case records of omalizumab treatment responsiveness after 16 weeks. We compared the differences in variables between the group of patients that responded to omalizumab therapy and the non-responder group, and then performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Finally, we analyzed the difference in response rate for subgroups by selecting cut-off values for the variables using Fisher's exact probability method.

RESULTS

This retrospective, single-center observational study enrolled 32 patients with severe asthma who were prescribed daily high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2 receptor agonists on long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists with or without OCS. Data on age, sex, BMI, bronchial thermoplasty, FeNO, serum total IgE, FEV1, blood eosinophils, induced sputum eosinophils, blood basophils, and complications were not significantly different between the responder and non-responder groups. In the univariate and multivariate logistic regression, all the variants were not significant, and we were unable to build a regression model. We used normal high values and the mean or median of variables as cut-off values to create patient subgroups for the variables and found no significant difference in the omalizumab response rate between the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The responsiveness of omalizumab is not associated with pretreatment clinical biomarkers, and these biomarkers should not be used to predict the responsiveness of omalizumab.

Immunologic Basis of Type 2 Biologics for Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory disease characterized by reversible airway obstruction and airway hyperreactivity to various environmental stimuli, leading to recurrent cough, dyspnea, and wheezing episodes. Regarding inflammatory mechanisms, type 2/eosinophilic inflammation along with activated mast cells is the major one; however, diverse mechanisms, including structural cells-derived and non-type 2/neutrophilic inflammations are involved, presenting heterogenous phenotypes. Although most asthmatic patients could be properly controlled by the guided treatment, patients with severe asthma (SA; classified as a treatment-refractory group) suffer from uncontrolled symptoms with frequent asthma exacerbations even on regular anti-inflammatory medications, raising needs for additional controllers, including biologics that target specific molecules found in asthmatic airway, and achieving the precision medicine for asthma. This review summarizes the immunologic basis of airway inflammatory mechanisms and current biologics for SA in order to address unmet needs for future targets.

Response to Omalizumab as an Add-On Therapy in the Treatment of Allergic Asthma in Adult Chinese Patients-A Retrospective Study

(a) Background: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE humanized monoclonal antibody marketed in China for the conventional treatment of poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of omalizumab, but the data from studies in actual clinical treatment are still relatively limited. (b) Methods: Thirty-two patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab on the basis of ICS-LABA (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonist) were selected. Clinical characteristics before and after treatment were collected to analyze the relationship between changes in serum total IgE levels and peripheral blood EOS (eosinophil) levels, FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), PEF (peak expiratory flow), OCS (oral glucocorticoid) dosage, ATC (asthma control test) score, and the number of acute exacerbations and the treatment response, in order to observe the efficacy of omalizumab in addition to primary therapy, and to investigate whether baseline clinical characteristics such as serum total IgE and EOS levels could predict a treatment response. (c) Results: Using the ACT score as an evaluation, 68.75% of patients benefited from omalizumab treatment at the end of 16 weeks. The response group has a reduction in OCS dosage (p-values of 0.026 and 0.039), a significant reduction in ACT scores (both p < 0.001), and a reduction in the number of acute exacerbations (p = 0.034 and 0.025, respectively) after omalizumab treatment. The binary logistics analysis of factors affecting the effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of allergic asthma were total serum IgE and the presence of comorbidities (p-values of 0.039 and 0.046, respectively). (d) Conclusions: Combining omalizumab with ICS-LABA for 16 weeks significantly improves asthma symptoms in Chinese adults and can be used as an add-on treatment. In addition, high serum IgE levels and the presence of comorbidities were predictors of its therapeutic efficacy.

Biologics and airway remodeling in severe asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease resulting in airflow obstruction, which in part can become irreversible to conventional therapies, defining the concept of airway remodeling. The introduction of biologics in severe asthma has led in some patients to the complete normalization of previously considered irreversible airflow obstruction. This highlights the need to distinguish a "fixed" airflow obstruction due to structural changes unresponsive to current therapies, from a "reversible" one as demonstrated by lung function normalization during biological therapies not previously obtained even with high-dose systemic glucocorticoids. The mechanisms by which exposure to environmental factors initiates the inflammatory responses that trigger airway remodeling are still incompletely understood. Alarmins represent epithelial-derived cytokines that initiate immunologic events leading to inflammatory airway remodeling. Biological therapies can improve airflow obstruction by addressing these airway inflammatory changes. In addition, biologics might prevent and possibly even revert "fixed" remodeling due to structural changes. Hence, it appears clinically important to separate the therapeutic effects (early and late) of biologics as a new paradigm to evaluate the effects of these drugs and future treatments on airway remodeling in severe asthma.