Development of a Tool to Measure the Clinical Response to Biologic Therapy in Uncontrolled Severe Asthma: The FEV1, Exacerbations, Oral Corticosteroids, Symptoms Score

Clinical characteristics of complete responders versus non-complete responders to omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma: a long-term retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Some patients with severe asthma may benefit from treatment with biologics, but evidence has been mostly collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients' characteristics are different from those encountered in asthma patients in the real-world setting. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of complete responders versus non-complete responders to long-term treatment with biologics in patients with severe asthma attended in routine daily practice.

METHODS

Data of a cohort of 90 patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for at least 12 months and were followed up to March 2022. Data recorded included clinical characteristics and effectiveness of treatment (exacerbation, Asthma Control Test [ACT] score, lung function, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]), FeNO, and blood eosinophils at baseline, at 12 months, and at the end of follow-up. Complete response is considered if, in addition to not presenting exacerbations or the use of mOCS, the ACT score was >20 and, the FEV1 >80% predicted.

RESULTS

An improvement in all asthma control parameters was observed after 12 months of treatment and a mean follow-up of 55 months. After 12 months of treatment 27.2% of patients met the criteria of complete response and this percentage even increased to 35.3% at the end of follow-up. Long-term complete response was associated to better lung function with mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment and to less previous exacerbations in the benralizumab group. The main cause of not achieving a complete response was the persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab improved the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs in the long term follow-up. Airflow obstruction, however, was a predictor of a non-complete response to biologics.

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.

Real-Life Clinical Outcomes of Benralizumab Treatment in Patients with Uncontrolled Severe Asthma and Coexisting Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate, the clinical benefit of benralizumab in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma associated with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Methods: The study included patients with uncontrolled severe asthma associated with CRSwNP who started therapy with benralizumab. Pulmonary function, eosinophilia, IgE, comorbidity, changes in the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Quality of Life (AQLQ), VAS (obstruction, drip, anosmia, facial pressure), SNOT-22, decrease or withdrawal of steroids and other medication, hospital admissions and emergency visits were analysed. The FEOS scale and EXACTO were employed in the assessment of response. Results: We analyzed 58 patients who completed minimal treatment at 12 months. After treatment with benralizumab, exacerbations were reduced by 82% (p < 0.001), steroid cycles by 84% (p < 0.001), emergencies visit by 83% p < 0.001) and admissions by 76% (p < 0.001), improving all the scales for asthma control, (p < 0.001). In terms of lung function, differences were observed in FVC% (p < 0.001), FEV1% (p < 0.001), and FEV1/FVC% (69.5 ± 10 vs. 74 ± 10, p < 0.001). In relation to CRSwNP, differences were observed in SNOT-22 (54.66 ± 17 vs. 20.24 ± 9, p < 0.001), VAS obstruction (7.91 ± 1 vs. 1.36 ± 1, p < 0. 001), VAS drip (7.76 ± 1 vs. 1.38 ± 1, p < 0.001), VAS anosmia (7.66 ± 1 vs. 1.38 ± 1, p < 0.001) and VAS facial pressure (7.91 ± 1 vs. 1.22 ± 1, p < 0.001). The mean FEOS score after treatment was 73 ± 14. A complete response/super response was achieved in 33 patients (57%), good response in 16 (28%) and partial response in 9 (15%). Conclusions: The administration of benralizumab to patients with uncontrolled severe asthma associated with CRSwNP has been demonstrated to improve nasal symptoms, asthma control and lung function. This resulted in a reduction in the need for oral steroids, maintenance and rescue medication, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions, with 57% of patients achieving the clinical remission criteria.

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort

BACKGROUND

Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma.

METHODS

Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day.

RESULTS

5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

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.

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%).

RESULTS

Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

Early response to Tezepelumab in type-2 severe asthma patients non-responders to other biological treatments: a real-life study

BACKGROUND. Biologic therapies play a crucial role in the treatment of severe asthma. Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody (mAb), inhibits thymic stromal lymphopoietin, a pivotal factor in the pathophysiology of asthma. Although randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of Tezepelumab, evidence gaps remain in real-world scenarios.OBJECTIVE. We sought investigate Tezepelumab's response in a clinical setting, focusing on patients who previously failed to other asthma mAbs.METHODS. Real-life study with severe uncontrolled asthma patients despite mAb treatment, requiring a switch to Tezepelumab. Follow-up was done four to six months after initiation of Tezepelumab. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the response in patients with poor response or intolerance to other mAbs.RESULTS. Nine patients were followed up during 7 months. Patients were predominantly middle-aged females with eosinophilic or eosinophilic-allergic phenotypes. Patients had a median failure rate of 2 mAbs (IQR 2-3), with an uncontrolled asthma (median of 2 severe exacerbations the previous year, airflow obstruction and 78% corticosteroid dependence). Tezepelumab demonstrated after 4 to 6 months of treatment reduce corticosteroid dependence (complete withdrawal in 2/7 patients), no exacerbations in 6/9, symptoms control improvement (Asthma Control Test score improved in 5/9) and modulate lung function (improving in 3/9 patients). These findings align with clinical trial results, suggesting Tezepelumab's potential in real-world settings.CONCLUSION. In real-world scenarios, despite the study's limitations, our results underscore Tezepelumab's promise as a therapeutic option for uncontrolled severe asthma, and may be useful for non-responders to other mAbs. Further studies are needed to corroborate these findings.

[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.

Predictors of Early and Late Lung Function Improvement in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma on Type2-Biologics in the PRISM Study

BACKGROUND

The determinants linked to the short- and long-term improvement in lung function in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) on biological treatment (BioT) remain elusive.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify the predictors of early and late lung function improvement in patients with SEA after BioT.

METHODS

140 adult patients with SEA who received mepolizumab, dupilumab, or reslizumab were followed up for 6 months to evaluate improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). Logistic regression was used to determine the association between potential prognostic factors and improved lung function at 1 and 6 months of treatment.

RESULTS

More than a third of patients with SEA using BioT showed early and sustained improvements in FEV1 after 1 month. A significant association was found between low baseline FEV1 and high blood eosinophil count and sustained FEV1 improvement after 1 month (0.54 [0.37-0.79] and 1.88 [1.28-2.97] odds ratios and 95% confidence interval, respectively). Meanwhile, among patients who did not experience FEV1 improvement after 1 month, 39% exhibited improvement at 6 months follow-up. A high ACT score measured at this visit was the most reliable predictor of late response after 6 months of treatment (OR and 95% CI 1.75 [1.09-2.98]).

CONCLUSION

Factors predicting the efficacy of biological agents that improve lung function in SEA vary according to the stage of response.

Comparison of Long-term Response and Remission to Omalizumab and Anti-IL-5/IL-5R Using Different Criteria in a Real-life Cohort of Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of biologic therapy response is vital to monitor its effectiveness. Authors have proposed various response criteria including good responder, super-responder, non-responder, and clinical remission.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the prevalence of response and clinical remission after long-term treatment (>6 months) of anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics, compare these results with existing criteria, and identify predictors for non-responders and clinical remission.

METHODS

A multicenter, real-life study involving severe asthma patients in Spain. Various outcomes were assessed to gauge response and clinical remission against established criteria.

RESULTS

The study included 429 patients, 209 (48.7%) omalizumab, 112 (26.1%) mepolizumab, 19 (4.4%) reslizumab and 89 (20.7%) benralizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 55.3±38.8 months. In the final year of treatment, 218 (50.8%) were super-responders, 173 (40.3%) responders, 38 (8.9%) non-responders, and clinical remission in 116 (27%), without differences among biologics. The short-term non-responders (<6 months) were 25/545 (4.6%). Substantial variations in response and clinical remission were observed when applying different published criteria. Predictors of non-response included higher BMI (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23; p<0.001), admissions at ICU (2.69; 1.30-5.56; p=0.01), high count of SAE (1.21; 1.03-1.42; p=0.02) before biologic treatment. High FEV1% (0.96; 0.95-0.98; p<0.001), a high ACT score (0.93; 0.88-0.99; p=0.01) before biologic treatment or NSAID-ERD (0.52; 0.29-0.91; p=0.02) showed strong associations with achieving clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of severe asthma patients treated long-term with omalizumab or anti-IL5/IL-5Rα achieved a good response. Differences in response criteria highlight the need for harmonization in defining response and clinical remission in biologic therapy to enable meaningful cross-study comparisons.

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.

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).

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort.

METHODS

We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy.

RESULTS

Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

Advances in the work of multidisciplinary teams for the care of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. A post-COVID vision (TEAM 2.0 project)

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease with a high health, social and economic impact, particularly in the case of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA). For this reason, new strategies are especially necessary to improve its approach, with a personalized approach to each patient and from a multidisciplinary perspective, in addition to integrating the new telemedicine and telepharmacy practices promoted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, the TEAM 2.0 project ("Work in Multidisciplinary Asthma Teams") has been developed, following the TEAM project carried out in 2019, with the aim of updating and prioritizing good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA in a post pandemic context and analyze the progress made. A coordinating group, made up of eight multidisciplinary teams of hospital pharmacists, pulmonologists, and allergists, carried out an updated bibliographic review, sharing of good multidisciplinary practices, and analysis of advances. Through five regional meetings with other experts with experience in SUA, the good practices identified were shared and subjected to debate, evaluation and prioritization. In total, 23 good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA, grouped into five work areas: 1) Organization of work in multidisciplinary teams, 2) Patient education, self-management and adherence, 3) Health results, data monitoring and persistence, 4) Telepharmacy and experiences implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and 5) Training and research, were evaluated and prioritized by 57 professionals from the field of Hospital Pharmacy, Pulmonology, Allergology and Nursing. This work has made it possible to update the roadmap of priority actions to continue advancing in optimal models of care for patients with AGNC in a post-COVID-19 context.

[Translated article] Advances in the work of multidisciplinary teams for the care of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. A post-COVID vision (TEAM 2.0 project)

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease with a high health, social and economic impact, particularly in the case of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA). For this reason, new strategies are especially necessary to improve its approach, with a personalized approach to each patient and from a multidisciplinary perspective, in addition to integrating the new telemedicine and telepharmacy practices promoted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, the TEAM 2.0 project ("Work in Multidisciplinary Asthma Teams") has been developed, following the TEAM project carried out in 2019, with the aim of updating and prioritizing good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA in a post pandemic context and analyze the progress made. A coordinating group, made up of eight multidisciplinary teams of hospital pharmacists, pulmonologists, and allergists, carried out an updated bibliographic review, sharing of good multidisciplinary practices, and analysis of advances. Through five regional meetings with other experts with experience in SUA, the good practices identified were shared and subjected to debate, evaluation and prioritization. In total, 23 good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA, grouped into five work areas: 1) Organization of work in multidisciplinary teams, 2) Patient education, self-management and adherence, 3) Health results, data monitoring and persistence, 4) Telepharmacy and experiences implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and 5) Training and research, were evaluated and prioritized by 57 professionals from the field of Hospital Pharmacy, Pulmonology, Allergology and Nursing. This work has made it possible to update the roadmap of priority actions to continue advancing in optimal models of care for patients with AGNC in a post-COVID-19 context.

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.

Factors to Consider in Prescribing Asthma Biologic Therapies to Children

The increasing availability of biologics, both by expanding age indications and by development of new therapies, provides additional options to treat children and adolescents with severe asthma. However, the evidence for these biologics in these populations is limited compared with that for adult studies. As such, before initiation of therapy, possible alternative therapies that can also provide asthma control, confirmation of the diagnosis of asthma, management of comorbidities, and assessment of adherence should be explored. The choice of a biologic should be a shared decision-making process between providers and families, balancing biologic efficacy, goals of care, administration, and ability to treat multiple conditions. Response to treatment should be periodically evaluated not only to ensure an ineffective treatment is not continued but also to consider when to potentially discontinue therapy should it be beneficial. The utilization of biologics in children and adolescents with severe asthma also leads to unanswered questions on their role in disease remission and long-term outcomes.

Precision Medicine Intervention in Severe Asthma (PRISM) study: molecular phenotyping of patients with severe asthma and response to biologics

Severe asthma represents an important clinical unmet need despite the introduction of biologic agents. Although advanced omics technologies have aided researchers in identifying clinically relevant molecular pathways, there is a lack of an integrated omics approach in severe asthma particularly in terms of its evolution over time. The collaborative Korea-UK research project Precision Medicine Intervention in Severe Asthma (PRISM) was launched in 2020 with the aim of identifying molecular phenotypes of severe asthma by analysing multi-omics data encompassing genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metagenomics and metabolomics. PRISM is a prospective, observational, multicentre study involving patients with severe asthma attending severe asthma clinics in Korea and the UK. Data including patient demographics, inflammatory phenotype, medication, lung function and control status of asthma will be collected along with biological samples (blood, sputum, urine, nasal epithelial cells and exhaled breath condensate) for omics analyses. Follow-up evaluations will be performed at baseline, 1 month, 4-6 months and 10-12 months to assess the stability of phenotype and treatment responses for those patients who have newly begun biologic therapy. Standalone and integrated omics data will be generated from the patient samples at each visit, paired with clinical information. By analysing these data, we will identify the molecular pathways that drive lung function, asthma control status, acute exacerbations and the requirement for daily oral corticosteroids, and that are involved in the therapeutic response to biological therapy. PRISM will establish a large multi-omics dataset of severe asthma to identify potential key pathophysiological pathways of severe asthma.

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).

Highlights del 55.° Congreso SEPAR

The 55th SEPAR Congress was held in Pamplona from 2 to 4 of June 2022. Once again, it was the referral scientific meeting for specialists in pulmonology, thoracic surgery, nursing, physiotherapy, paediatric respiratory diseases and other disciplines involved in respiratory care. The Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery showed its national and international leadership in the management of respiratory diseases, which was reflected in a program with an excellent content and a high scientific level. In this review, we offer a summary of some notable aspects covered in six selected areas of interest: pulmonary vascular diseases, non-invasive mechanical ventilation and sleep disorders, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung diseases (ILD), and interventional pulmonolgy and lung transplant.

Impact of short-term pausing of oral corticosteroids on blood eosinophil count in patients with severe asthma

Background The peripheral blood eosinophil count (BEC) is a well-established and easily accessible biomarker for asthma patients and crucial for the therapeutic decision regarding monoclonal antibody (mAB) therapy. Oral corticosteroid therapy frequently hinders the correct evaluation of BEC in patients with severe asthma, but a discontinuation of such therapy frequently comes along with severe side effects. Therefore, we examined the effect of a short 24-hour pause of OCS treatment on BEC in patients with severe asthma and followed-up whether patients with a then increased eosinophil count benefited from mAB-therapy, as expected.

Methods In this multicentre study we retrospectively included 24 patients with severe asthma and OCS therapy and determined their BEC count. Ten patients, where BEC count was obtained in the morning before taking medication (a de-facto 24-hour OCS pause), were assigned to group 1. Fourteen patients, where BEC was obtained after OCS tapering were assigned to group 2. Those who then received mAB treatment were followed up for treatment response (OCS dose, annual acute exacerbations, increase in forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] and asthma control test [ACT]) after ≥3 months.

Results We included 24 patients with a median age of 60.5 [IQR: 17.3] years. Regarding all baseline characteristics except FEV1 (l), both groups did not differ significantly.

Among all 24 patients, after pausing OCS therapy for 2 [5.5] days the BEC increased significantly from 125.0/μl [125] to 300/μl [232.5] (p<0.001). In both individual groups BEC increased significantly as well (150 [123] to 325 [305], p=0.005 and 70 [150] to 280 [255], p<0.001), with no significant difference for increase (BEC +170/µl [205.0] vs. +195 [222.5], p=0.886). Of all 24 patients, 13 (54.2%) reached eosinophil levels ≥300/µl, while 12 of them had not exceeded this threshold before.

Subsequently, 20 patients (83.3%) received mAB-therapy with 55.5% demonstrating a good treatment response within 6 [1.5] months. The response rate in patients with BEC count ≥300/µl was even higher (75.0%). There was no difference in the treatment response rate between group 1 and 2 (p=0.092).

Conclusion After just a short 24-hour pause of OCS therapy it was possible to demask a relevant eosinophilia in asthma patients, without risking severe side effects. In this manner, we enabled the possibility of achieving successful targeted mAB-therapy, according to the patient’s individual asthma phenotype.

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

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

Documento de consenso de asma grave en adultos. Actualización 2022

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

Asthma Control in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Treated with Reslizumab: Spanish Real-Life Data

Background

Reslizumab is an anti-interleukin 5 monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated to reduce the risk of severe exacerbations and to improve symptoms, lung function, and quality of life in randomized controlled trials that included patients with severe eosinophilic uncontrolled asthma (SEUA) and a history of severe exacerbations.

Objective

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of add-on reslizumab in a cohort of patients with SEUA under real-life conditions.

Methods

This was a multi-centre, retrospective, real-life study that included subjects with SEUA treated with reslizumab in 44 asthma units throughout Spain. Eligible patients were those who had received at least one dose of reslizumab as part of normal clinical practice. The primary endpoint was complete asthma control at 52 weeks, defined as absence of severe exacerbations, ACT ≥20 and no maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS). Demographic, clinical, and functional data were collected at baseline (T0), after four to six months (T1); after 12 months (T2) and beyond 12 months of therapy (T3).

Results

Treatment with reslizumab achieved complete asthma control in 40% of the 208 included SEUA patients and led to a significant reduction in exacerbations (from 3.0; IQR: 2.0–4.0 at V0 to 0.0; IQR: 0.0–0.0 at V2), maintenance OCS use (from 54.8% (95% CI: 48.0–61.6 at T0 to 18.5% (95% CI: 12.5–24.5 at T2) and a meaningful improvement in symptoms in the entire treated population: ACT increased from 12.8 ± 4.5 at V0 to 20.0 ± 5.1 at V2 (p < 0.001). Most of the improvement achieved at 12 months was obtained at 4–6 months. The retention (continuation) rate of reslizumab was 75% through 2 years (95CI%: 1.9–2.1). Overall, reslizumab showed an adequate safety profile.

Conclusion

Reslizumab is an effective therapy for SEUA with adequate safety profile in real-life conditions.

Effective Management of Severe Asthma with Biologic Medications in Adult Patients: A Literature Review and International Expert Opinion

Severe asthma often remains uncontrolled despite effective treatments and evidence-based guidelines. A group of global experts in asthma and biologic medications from 9 countries considered the most relevant clinical variables to manage severe asthma in adult patients and guide treatment choice. The resulting recommendations address the investigation of biomarker levels (blood eosinophil count along with fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]), clinical features (oral corticosteroid [OCS] dependence, specific comorbid disease entities associated with severe type 2 asthma), and safety considerations. Current evidence suggests that biomarkers, including both blood or sputum eosinophil counts as well as FeNO, add prognostic and predictive value and should be measured in all patients with severe asthma. OCS use is an important factor in biologic selection, especially given the documented ability of some biologics to reduce OCS dependence. Comorbid diseases and relevant safety considerations to each biologic should also be considered. More data are needed to determine whether biomarker profiles identify patients suited to one biologic versus another as limited data support differential predictors of response. Further prospective head-to-head trials and post hoc analyses of clinical trial data are warranted. The authors believe that these recommendations have value as they offer expert opinion to assist health care providers in making difficult decisions regarding the quality of care in severe, type 2 asthma with biologic medications. They remain conditional and are based on limited data owing to a lack of head-to-head comparisons.

Anti-interleukin 5 therapies failure criteria in severe asthma: a Delphi-consensus study

Background:

Current practices for assessing response to anti-interleukin 5/R treatment in severe asthma patients are heterogeneous. The objective of this study was to achieve an expert consensus defining failure criteria for anti-interleukin 5/R treatment in severe asthma patients.

Methods:

Experts were invited to a 5-round Delphi exercise if they were pulmonologists managing ⩾30 patients at a nationally recognized severe asthma expert centre. Following two rounds of statement-generating brainstorming, the expert panel ranked each statement according to a 5-point Likert-type scale during three additional rounds. Positive consensus was considered achieved when ⩾80% of experts agreed with a statement with >50% strong agreement and <15% disagreement.

Results:

Twenty experts participated in the study. All experts agreed that predefined treatment goals defining effectiveness should be personalized during shared decision making via a patient contract. Treatment failure was defined as (1) absence of a reduction in exacerbation rates by ⩾25% or (2) absence of a reduction in oral corticosteroid therapy by ⩾25% of the initial dosage or (3) occurrence of emergency room visits or hospitalizations after 6 months of treatment. Treatment failure should result in discontinuation. For partial responders, treatment discontinuation was not recommended unless an alternative from another therapeutic class exists and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary consultation.

Conclusion:

The present study provides objective criteria for anti IL5 or IL5R failure in severe asthma and suggests consensus based guidelines for prescription, evaluation and discontinuation decision-making.