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

Real-World Data on Tezepelumab in Patients With Severe Asthma in Germany

BACKGROUND

Tezepelumab is a novel biologic blocking thymic stromal lymphopoetin, approved for severe asthma irrespective of biomarker levels or phenotype.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize a real-world tezepelumab patient cohort and the efficacy among various asthma phenotypes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, multicenter study on patients with severe asthma initiating tezepelumab. Clinical response was evaluated at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

We included 129 patients with an average age of 52.5 ± 13.1 years, 59.7% were female. The majority (86.0%) had increased type 2 (T2) biomarkers, 68.2% an allergic and 31.8% an eosinophilic phenotype. 23.3% of patients were biologic-naive. 22 (18.2%) patients discontinued tezepelumab therapy owing to suspected side effects or insufficient efficacy. At 6 months' follow-up, median reduction in annualized exacerbation rate was-1 [25th percentile; 75% percentile {-2.9; 0.0}], the reduction of oral corticosteroid dose among patients with long-term oral corticosteroid therapy was -5 mg [-10; 0] and the Asthma Control Test (ACT) improved by 2 [0; 5] points. A treatment response according to Biologic Asthma Response Score of 80.8% was demonstrated. There were no significant differences in treatment response between T2-high versus T2-low, early- versus adult-onset and eosinophilic versus non-eosinophilic asthma. Prior treatment with other biologics was associated with inferior treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-life cohort, including a large proportion of patients with history of previous biologic use and encompassing various subgroups, the majority responded to tezepelumab. Our data further suggest a steroid-sparing effect of tezepelumab.

Clinical remission in severe asthma: lights and shadows on an ambitious goal

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was Describe the latest evidence related to the concept of clinical remission in patients with severe asthma, focusing on the lights and shadows of this concept.

RECENT FINDINGS

The idea of clinical remission in severe asthma patients brings about a significant shift in the way asthma is treated and managed. Although there has yet to be unanimous agreement among various scientific societies on the precise definition, this concept can be extremely useful in advancing the treatment of the disease.

SUMMARY

Asthma is a common respiratory condition that affects more than 300 million people globally. It has variable symptoms and severity levels, with about 10% of patients experiencing severe asthma. While there have been advancements in treatment, severe asthma poses significant challenges. Recent approaches have focused on achieving clinical remission, which goes beyond symptom control to address underlying inflammation and biological processes. Clinical remission criteria include the absence of symptoms, reduced medication usage, and normalized inflammatory markers. Various biologic therapies show promise, with some patients achieving remission. However, remission's definition varies globally, hindering standardization and a valid comparison. Standardizing remission criteria and refining predictive factors are crucial for effective asthma management. Overall, achieving clinical remission offers hope for improved long-term outcomes in severe asthma patients.

Effect of Azithromycin on Asthma Remission in Adults With Persistent Uncontrolled Asthma: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized, Double-Anonymized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Asthma remission is a potential treatment goal.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does adding azithromycin to standard therapy in patients with persistent uncontrolled asthma induce remission compared with placebo?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This secondary analysis used data from the Asthma and Macrolides: the Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety (AMAZES) clinical trial-a double-anonymized placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of azithromycin on asthma exacerbations. The primary remission definition (referred to as clinical remission) was zero exacerbations and zero oral corticosteroids during the previous 6 months evaluated at 12 months and a 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire score ≤ 1 at 12 months. Secondary remission definitions included clinical remission plus lung function criteria (postbronchodilator FEV1 ≥ 80% or postbronchodilator FEV1 ≤ 5% decline from baseline) and complete remission (sputum eosinophil count < 3% plus the aforementioned criteria). Sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of primary and secondary remission definitions. The predictors of clinical remission were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 335 participants (41.5% male; median age, 61.01 years; quartile 1-3, 51.03-68.73) who completed the 12-month treatment period were included in the analysis. Twelve months of treatment with azithromycin induced asthma remission in a subgroup of patients, and a significantly higher proportion in the azithromycin arm achieved both clinical remission (50.6% vs 38.9%; P = .032) and clinical remission plus lung function criteria (50.8% vs 37.1%; P = .029) compared with placebo, respectively. In addition, a higher proportion of the azithromycin group achieved complete remission (23% vs 13.7%; P = .058). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. Baseline factors (eg, better asthma-related quality of life, absence of oral corticosteroid burst in the previous year) predicted the odds of achieving clinical remission. Azithromycin induced remission in both eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

INTERPRETATION

In this study, adults with persistent symptomatic asthma achieved a higher remission rate when treated with azithromycin. Remission on treatment may be an achievable treatment target in moderate/severe asthma, and future studies should consider remission as an outcome measure.

Overcoming Barriers to Remission in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Two-Year Real-World Data With Benralizumab

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab has been reported to lead to clinical remission of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) at 1 year in some patients. However, whether this is maintained over a longer term remains unclear. Additionally, the impact of pulmonary and extrapulmonary comorbidities on the ability to meet remission is poorly understood.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes including remission of SEA with benralizumab at 1 and 2 years were assessed retrospectively in a real-world UK multi-centre severe asthma cohort. The presence of clinically relevant pulmonary and extrapulmonary comorbidities associated with respiratory symptoms was recorded. Analyses to identify factors associated with the ability to meet remission were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 276 patients with SEA treated with benralizumab including 113 patients who had switched from a previous biologic to benralizumab were included. Overall, clinical remission was met in 17% (n = 31/186) and 32% (n = 43/133) of patients at 1 and 2 years, respectively. This increased to 28% at 1 year and 49% at 2 years once patients with pulmonary and/or extrapulmonary comorbidities were excluded. Body mass index (BMI) and maintenance OCS (mOCS) use demonstrated a negative association with clinical remission at 1 (BMI: OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.96, p < 0.01; mOCS: OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.99, p < 0.05) and 2 years (BMI: OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99, p < 0.05; mOCS: OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.89-0.99, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this long-term, real-world study, patients with SEA demonstrated the ability to meet and sustain clinical remission when treated with benralizumab. The presence of comorbidities including obesity, which are known to be independently associated with respiratory symptoms, reduced the likelihood of meeting clinical remission.

[Modern asthma management]

Symptom prevention and remission are the goals of asthma treatment. Precise phenotyping of the patients, including history, lung function, allergology and measurement of type 2 biomarkers, is the essential prerequisite for treatment success. Basic measures, treatment with DMAADs ("disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs": predominantly inhaled corticosteroids, biologics, and allergen immunotherapy) and treatment of comorbidities are the cornerstones of modern asthma management. The treatment of upper airway diseases such as allergic rhinitis (often associated with early-onset asthma) or chronic rhinosinusitis (often associated with adult-onset asthma, with 2 forms: either with nasal polyps, CRSwNP, or without nasal polyps, CRSsNP) is of major importance in this regard.

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.

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.

Clinical remission maintained and improved over time in patients with severe asthma treated with omalizumab

BACKGROUND

Clinical remission has recently been proposed as a possible treatment goal even in severe asthma. In this real-world study, we aimed to assess the achievement rate and predictive factors of clinical remission using omalizumab in patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients with severe asthma initiated with omalizumab therapy and recruited from the asthma clinic of the Akdeniz University Hospital, Turkey. Clinical remission was defined as patients who received no oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy; showed no exacerbations; showed an asthma control questionnaire score of ≤ 1, asthma control test (ACT) of ≥ 20, or both and, FEV1 of ≥ 80% predicted.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included in the study, with an average age of 56.4 ± 13.6 years. The mean duration of asthma was 23.5 ± 11.8 years and the mean duration of omalizumab treatment was 80.05 ± 35.04 months. Clinical remission rates were 25.9% in the first and second year, 34.0% in the third year, 34.1% in the fourth year and 47.4% in the fifth year. Pre-omalizumab ACT, FEV1 (%) and OCS use were significantly higher in patients with clinical remission at 1 year. Logistic regression analyses showed that none of the factors predicted clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab has the potential to induce disease remission in a significant proportion of people with severe asthma, and this is maintained and improved over time.

Benralizumab Reduces Respiratory Exacerbations and Oral Glucocorticosteroid Dose in Patients with Severe Asthma and Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis

Background

Benralizumab reduces exacerbations and long-term oral glucocorticosteroid (OCS) exposure in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), uncontrolled symptoms and exacerbations of asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are important reasons for continued OCS therapies. We aimed to describe outcomes of patients with severe asthma and EGPA treated with benralizumab in real-life.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed adult patients from the Severe Asthma Unit at LMU Munich diagnosed with severe asthma and EGPA treated with benralizumab, differentiating two groups: Group A, patients with a stable daily OCS dose and diagnosis of EGPA >6 months ago; and Group B, patients treated with high-dose daily OCS due to recent diagnosis of EGPA <6 months ago. We compared outcome parameters at baseline and 12 months after initiation of benralizumab, including respiratory exacerbations, daily OCS dose, and lung function.

Results

Group A included 17 patients, all receiving OCS therapy and additional immunosuppressants; 15 patients (88%) continued benralizumab for more than 12 months, demonstrating a significant reduction in daily OCS dose and exacerbations while FEV1 increased. Group B included 9 patients, all with high-dose daily OCS and some receiving cyclophosphamide pulse therapy for life-threatening disease. Benralizumab addition during induction was well tolerated. A total of 7/9 (78%) continued benralizumab for more than 12 months and preserved EGPA remission at the 12-month timepoint.

Conclusion

In this real-life cohort of patients with severe asthma and EGPA, benralizumab initiation during remission maintenance reduced respiratory exacerbations and daily OCS dose. Benralizumab initiation during remission induction was associated with a high rate of clinical EGPA remission.

Remission in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current concepts of remission in asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until 2023, asthma guidelines have been promoting the concept of disease control, recommending the step-wise addition of drugs until the best possible disease control is achieved. With the advent of highly effective, anti-inflammatory disease-modifying antiasthmatic drugs (DMAADs), treatment goals of asthma have changed. Several national guidelines have now announced remission as a general treatment goal in asthma. Currently, all guidelines agree that asthma remission is defined by the presence of at least three characteristics over a period of at least one 1 year: absence of exacerbations, no systemic corticosteroid use for the treatment of asthma and minimal asthma-related symptoms. In the future, a generally accepted, evidence-based and easy-to-use definition of remission will be needed for daily clinical practice. It is clear, however, that precise phenotyping (including measurement of biomarkers) is an essential prerequisite to achieve clinical remission in each individual patient.

SUMMARY

Remission has been included as the treatment goal in asthma in several national guidelines, reflecting the paradigm shift in asthma, from short-term symptom control to long-term symptom prevention. An international consensus on the criteria for asthma remission is expected in the near future.

Real-World Effectiveness of Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma: Analysis of the KoSAR

PURPOSE

Severe asthma is associated with high morbidity and healthcare utilization; however, treatment options for these patients are limited. This study aimed to determine the therapeutic effects of biologics in clinical practice.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 136 patients who received biologics for at least 4 months between September 2017 and July 2022 at 25 medical centers affiliated with the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR). The study evaluated the treatment effects, including acute exacerbation rates, maintenance of oral corticosteroid dosages, lung function, quality of life, blood eosinophil count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, by comparing measurements before and after 4 months of biologic treatment. Responses for each medication was evaluated based on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness score, and any adverse reactions were summarized.

RESULTS

With the administration of biologics over the course of 4 months, there was a reduction in asthma acute exacerbations, a significant improvement in lung function, and a significant decrease in daily maintenance dose of oral steroid. Blood eosinophil counts decreased in the mepolizumab and reslizumab groups, while FeNO levels decreased only in the dupilumab group. The Asthma Control Test, Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics, and the EuroQol-visual analogue scale scores showed a significant improvement. Most patients (80.15%) responded to the biologic treatment. Meanwhile, non-responders often had chronic rhinosinusitis as a comorbidity, exhibited lower lung function, and required higher doses of oral steroids. No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics are highly effective in Korean patients with Type 2 severe asthma, significantly reducing acute exacerbation rates and doses of oral corticosteroids, while also improving lung function. Therefore, it seems beneficial to administer biologics without any restrictions to patients exhibiting Type 2 severe asthma.

[Precision medicine in the diagnosis and treatment of asthma]

Due to the availability of disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs (DMAADs), especially inhaled steroids (alone or in combination with long-acting bronchodilators), biologics and modern allergen immunotherapy, the treatment of asthma has fundamentally changed. The aims of modern asthma precision medicine are prevention of symptoms and the induction and maintenance of asthma remission (long-term asthma control, freedom from exacerbations and stable lung function without the use of systemic steroids). A treat to target approach is used as for other chronic inflammatory diseases in internal medicine: the aim is to achieve remission by an individually tailored treatment with DMAADs; however, the prerequisite for modern asthma precision medicine is asthma phenotyping, including a detailed medical history, lung function testing, allergological diagnostics and measurement of type 2 markers (blood eosinophils and, if available, exhaled nitric oxide, FeNO).

Clinical Response and Remission in Patients With Severe Asthma Treated With Biologic Therapies

BACKGROUND

The development of novel targeted biologic therapies for severe asthma has provided an opportunity to consider remission as a new treatment goal.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How many patients with severe asthma treated with biologic therapy achieve clinical remission, and what predicts response to treatment?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The Danish Severe Asthma Register is a nationwide cohort including all adult patients receiving biologic therapy for severe asthma in Denmark. This observational cohort study defined "clinical response" to treatment following 12 months as a ≥ 50% reduction in exacerbations and/or a ≥ 50% reduction in maintenance oral corticosteroid dose, if required. "Clinical remission" was defined by cessation of exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroids, as well as a normalization of lung function (FEV1 > 80%) and a six-question Asthma Control Questionnaire score ≤ 1.5 following 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Following 12 months of treatment, 104 (21%) of 501 biologic-naive patients had no response to treatment, and 397 (79%) had a clinical response. Among the latter, 97 (24%) fulfilled the study criteria of clinical remission, corresponding to 19% of the entire population. Remission was predicted by shorter duration of disease and lower BMI in the entire population of patients treated with biologic therapy.

INTERPRETATION

Clinical response was achieved in most adult patients initiating biologic therapy, and clinical remission was observed in 19% of the patients following 12 months of treatment. Further studies are required to assess the long-term outcome of achieving clinical remission with biologic therapy.

Biologics (mepolizumab and omalizumab) induced remission in severe asthma patients

BACKGROUND

Asthma remission has emerged as a potential treatment goal. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two biologics (mepolizumab/omalizumab) in achieving asthma remission.

METHODS

This observational study included 453 severe asthma patients (41% male; mean age ± SD 55.7 ± 14.7 years) from two real-world drug registries: the Australian Mepolizumab Registry and the Australian Xolair Registry. The composite outcome clinical remission was defined as zero exacerbations and zero oral corticosteroids during the previous 6 months assessed at 12 months and 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) ≤1 at 12 months. We also assessed clinical remission plus optimization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80%) or stabilization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 not greater than 5% decline from baseline) of lung function at 12 months. Sensitivity analyses explored various cut-offs of ACQ-5/FEV1 scores. The predictors of clinical remission were identified.

RESULTS

29.3% (73/249) of AMR and 22.8% (37/162) of AXR cohort met the criteria for clinical remission. When lung function criteria were added, the remission rates were reduced to 25.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses identified that the remission rate ranged between 18.1% and 34.9% in the AMR cohort and 10.6% and 27.2% in the AXR cohort. Better lung function, lower body mass index, mild disease and absence of comorbidities such as obesity, depression and osteoporosis predicted the odds of achieving clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

Biologic treatment with mepolizumab or omalizumab for severe asthma-induced asthma remission in a subgroup of patients. Remission on treatment may be an achievable treatment target and future studies should consider remission as an outcome measure.

Immunogenicity of biologics used in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is a major global disease affecting adults and children, which can lead to hospitalization and death due to breathing difficulties. Although targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have revolutionized treatment of severe asthma, some patients still fail to respond. Here we critically evaluate the literature on biologic therapy failure in asthma patients with particular reference to anti-drug antibody production, and subsequent loss of response, as the potential primary cause of drug failure in asthma patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Encouragingly, asthma in most cases responds to treatment, including the use of an increasing number of biologic drugs in moderate to severe disease. This includes monoclonal antibody inhibitors of immunoglobulin E and cytokines, including interleukin 4, 5, or 13 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. These limit mast cell and eosinophil activity that cause the symptomatic small airways obstruction and exacerbations.

SUMMARY

Despite humanization of the antibodies, it is evident that benralizumab; dupilumab; mepolizumab; omalizumab; reslizumab and tezepelumab all induce anti-drug antibodies to some extent. These can contribute to adverse events including infusion reactions, serum sickness, anaphylaxis and potentially disease activity due to loss of therapeutic function. Monitoring anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may allow prediction of future treatment-failure in some individuals allowing treatment cessation and switching therefore potentially limiting disease breakthrough.

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 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.