Baseline blood eosinophil count as a predictor of treatment response to the licensed dose of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma

Role of IL-5 in asthma and airway remodelling

Asthma is a common and burdensome chronic inflammatory airway disease that affects both children and adults. One of the main concerns with asthma is the manifestation of irreversible tissue remodelling of the airways due to the chronic inflammatory environment that eventually disrupts the whole structure of the airways. Most people with troublesome asthma are treated with inhaled corticosteroids. However, the development of steroid resistance is a commonly encountered issue, necessitating other treatment options for these patients. Biological therapies are a promising therapeutic approach for people with steroid-resistant asthma. Interleukin 5 is recently gaining a lot of attention as a biological target relevant to the tissue remodelling process. Since IL-5-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab) are currently available for clinical use, this review aims to revisit the role of IL-5 in asthma pathogenesis at large and airway remodelling in particular, in addition to exploring its role as a target for biological treatments.

The clinical effectiveness of mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma; outcomes from four years cohort evaluation

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials and real world studies demonstrated benefit of mepolizumab treatment in severe asthma but data on its effectiveness beyond 2 years remain limited. Herein, we provide mepolizumab treatment evaluation up to 4 years.

METHODS

we studied all patients initiated on mepolizumab in our center from June 2017 to August 2018. Clinical outcomes data were retrieved from the local dendrite systems registry. Comparison analyses and logistic regression were conducted to explore longevity and predictors of response to mepolizumab treatment.

RESULTS

a total of 66 patients initiated on mepolizumab with a median follow-up of 45.8 (42.4,48.1) months were included in the study [mean age 50.3 years (range 18-79), females 50 (73%) ]. At 20.7 months of treatment, 42 patients (63.6%) had positive response, 13 (19.7%) negative response, and 11 (16.7%) discontinued due to other factors. At 45.8 months, 35 (53%) patients were still on mepolizumab, 21 (31.8%) switched to a different biologic, and 10 (15.2%) discontinued biologics. Two deaths were recorded during the study period.The median blood eosinophil was reduced from 0.43x109/L (0.27, 0.75) to 0.04 (0.0, 0.1) (p < 0.00001)]. The median annual exacerbations were reduced from 6.0 (4,8) to 1.0 (0.0,3.0) (p < 0.00001), and mOCS use was reduced from59% to 29%, p = 0.001. The mean asthma control questionnaire-6 (ACQ6) improved from 3.1 ± 1.7 to 2.1 ± 1.3 (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

mepolizumab clinical benefit was sustained over 4 years. However, approximately half of the cohort discontinued the treatment prompting the need for further research into the treatment response longevity.

Ratio of plasma IL-13/TNF- ∝ and CXCL10/CCL17 predicts mepolizumab and omalizumab response in asthma better than eosinophil count or immunoglobulin E level

To date, most studies to identify biomarkers associated with response to the anti-interleukin 5 agent, mepolizumab, and to the anti-immunoglobulin E agent, omalizumab have focused on clinically available biomarkers, such as the peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and total immunoglobulin E (IgE). However, these biomarkers often have low predictive accuracy, with many patients with eosinophilic or allergic asthma failing to demonstrate clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab respectively. In this study, we evaluated the association of baseline pre-biologic plasma levels of 26 cytokines and chemokines, including T-helper 1 (Th1)-, Th2-, Th17-related cytokines, and their ratios with subsequent clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab. We defined clinical response as a reduction in the baseline annual exacerbation rate by half or more over the one-year period following initiation of the biologic. Baseline levels of plasma IL-13 were differentially elevated in responders versus non-responders to mepolizumab and plasma CXCL10 levels were differentially elevated in responders to omalizumab. The ratio of IL-13/TNF-α had the best sensitivity and specificity in predicting response to mepolizumab and CXCL10/CCL17 to omalizumab, and these performed better as predictive biomarkers of response than BEC and IgE. Cytokines and chemokines associated with airway eosinophilia, allergic inflammation, or Th2 inflammation, such as IL-13 and CXCL10, may be better predictors of clinical response to mepolizumab and omalizumab, than IL-5 or IgE, the targets of mepolizumab and omalizumab.

The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge in Childhood Asthma over Time: A Surprising History

Asthma is a disease that has been described since the times of Hammurabi. However, it is only since the 1960s that effective therapeutic strategies have been available. Pathogenic mechanisms underlying the disease have been deeply studied, contributing to creating a "patient-specific asthma" definition. Biological drugs have been approved over the last twenty years, improving disease management in patients with severe asthma via a "precision medicine-driven approach". This article aims to describe the evolution of scientific knowledge in childhood asthma, focusing on the most recent biological therapies and their indications for patients with severe asthma.

Effects of biological therapies on patients with Type-2 high asthma and comorbid obesity

Over 20 million adults and 6 million children in the United States (US) have asthma, a chronic respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchoconstriction, and mucus hypersecretion. Obesity, another highly prevalent disease in the US, is a major risk factor for asthma and a significant cause of diminished asthma control, increased submucosal eosinophilia, and reduced quality of life. A large subgroup of these patients experiences severe symptoms and recurrent exacerbations despite maximal dosage of standard asthma therapies. In the past two decades, the development of biological therapies has revolutionized the field and advanced our understanding of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers. However, patients with obesity and comorbid asthma are not principally considered in clinical trials of biologics. Large landmark cluster analyses of patients with asthma have consistently identified specific asthma phenotypes that associate with obesity but may be differentiated by age of asthma onset and inflammatory cell profiles in sputum. These patterns suggest that biologic processes driving asthma pathology are heterogenous among patients with obesity. The biological mechanisms driving pathology in patients with asthma and comorbid obesity are not well understood and likely multifactorial. Future research needs to be done to elicit the cellular and metabolic functions in the relationship of obesity and asthma to yield the best treatment options for this multiplex condition. In this review, we explore the key features of type 2 inflammation in asthma and discuss the effectiveness, safety profile, and research gaps regarding the currently approved biological therapies in asthma patients with obesity.

Developments in the Management of Severe Asthma in Children and Adolescents: Focus on Dupilumab and Tezepelumab

Severe asthma in children and adolescents exerts a substantial health, financial, and societal burden. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition with multiple clinical phenotypes and underlying inflammatory patterns that might be different in individual patients. Various add-on treatments have been developed to treat severe asthma, including monoclonal antibodies (biologics) targeting inflammatory mediators. Biologics that are currently approved to treat children (≥ 6 years of age) or adolescents (≥ 12 years of age) with severe asthma include: anti-immunoglobulin E (omalizumab), anti-interleukin (IL)-5 (mepolizumab), anti-IL5 receptor (benralizumab), anti-IL4/IL13 receptor (dupilumab), and antithymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) (tezepelumab). However, access to these targeted treatments varies across countries and relies on few and crude indicators. There is a need for better treatment stratification to guide which children might benefit from these treatments. In this narrative review we will assess the most recent developments in the treatment of severe pediatric asthma, as well as potential biomarkers to assess treatment efficacy for this patient population.

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma: Pooled Analysis of the PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR Clinical Trials

Rationale: Tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma across a range of baseline blood eosinophil counts and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and irrespective of allergy status, in the phase 2b PATHWAY (Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of MEDI9929 [AMG 157] in Adult Subjects With Inadequately Controlled, Severe Asthma; NCT02054130) and phase 3 NAVIGATOR (Study to Evaluate Tezepelumab in Adults & Adolescents With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma; NCT03347279) trials. Objectives: To examine the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in additional clinically relevant subgroups using pooled data from PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR. Methods: PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with similar designs. This pooled analysis included patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma (PATHWAY, 18-75 years old; NAVIGATOR, 12-80 years old) who received tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The annualized asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks and secondary outcomes were calculated in the overall population and in subgroups defined by inflammatory biomarker levels or clinical characteristics. Measurements and Main Results: Overall, 1,334 patients were included (tezepelumab, n = 665; placebo, n = 669). Tezepelumab reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo by 60% (rate ratio, 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.48]) in the overall population, and clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations were observed in tezepelumab-treated patients with type 2-high and type 2-low disease by multiple definitions. Tezepelumab reduced exacerbation-related hospitalization or emergency department visits and improved secondary outcomes compared with placebo overall and across subgroups. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Tezepelumab resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations and improvements in other outcomes in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, across clinically relevant subgroups. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02054130 [PATHWAY], NCT03347279 [NAVIGATOR]).

Comorbidities Modify the Phenotype but Not the Treatment Effectiveness to Mepolizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

BACKGROUND

Comorbidities in severe asthma are common and contribute to disease burden. The severe asthma phenotype and treatment response can be impacted by comorbid conditions. Real-world data on the use of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) in the presence of comorbidities are needed to inform clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of comorbid conditions on baseline phenotype in patients with SEA and assess the mepolizumab treatment effect by comorbidity status in SEA.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the Australian Mepolizumab Registry (n = 309) were classified into subgroups defined by the presence or absence of comorbidities, including nasal polyps, aspirin-exacerbated airway disease, asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap (ACO), fungal sensitization, and obesity. Patient baseline characteristics were compared, and the impacts of comorbidity on phenotype, identified by differences in patient age and/or baseline biomarker levels and/or asthma severity, were assessed. The mepolizumab treatment effects on clinical and biological outcomes at 12 months were assessed.

RESULTS

Across comorbidity subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (range: 47%-77%), maintenance oral corticosteroid use (dose reduction: 4.2-13.3 mg/d), and improved symptom control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score: 1.9-2.4 point reduction) and lung function (mean: 3.4-9.3 post-bronchodilator percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second). Peripheral blood eosinophils were reduced (mean: 480-780 cells/μL). Comorbidities (nasal polyps, obesity, ACO, and fungal sensitization) modified the baseline phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab treatment is associated with comparable clinical improvements in patients with SEA and comorbidities. Mepolizumab effectively minimizes the disease impact and corticosteroid burden in patients with SEA.

Real-World Experience on the Use of Mepolizumab from the Severe Asthma Registry of the German Asthma Net (MepoGAN-Study)

Purpose

The German Asthma Net (GAN) operates a Severe Asthma Registry that provides an overview of the clinical presentation and management of patients with severe asthma. Based upon data from the GAN registry, the MepoGAN study aimed to describe clinical profiles and treatment outcomes of patients who were treated with the anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab (Nucala^TM) in routine practice in Germany.

Patients and Methods

The MepoGAN study is a descriptive retrospective non-interventional cohort study. Mepolizumab patients enrolled in the GAN registry were evaluated with results being described in two different data sets: Cohort 1 (n=131) started on mepolizumab when the patients entered the registry. Results were reported after 4 months of therapy. Patients in Cohort 2 (n=220) were on treatment with mepolizumab at the time of enrollment and follow-up data were collected after a further year of treatment. Outcome measures included asthma control, lung function, disease symptoms, OCS use, and exacerbations.

Results

Patients enrolled in the registry who started on mepolizumab in Cohort 1 had a mean age of 55 years, were former smokers in 51% of the cases, had a mean blood eosinophil count of 500 cells/μL, and frequently had maintenance OCS use (55%). In this real-world setting, mepolizumab therapy was associated with a clinically relevant reduction in blood eosinophils (-445.7 cells/μL), OCS use (-30%), and improvement in asthma control. Fifty-five percent (vs 10% at baseline) of the patients reported controlled or partially controlled asthma 4 months after starting therapy. In patients who were already treated with mepolizumab at registry enrollment (Cohort 2), asthma control and lung function remained stable after a further year of observation.

Conclusion

The GAN registry data confirm the effectiveness of mepolizumab in a real-world setting. Treatment benefits are maintained over time. While the asthma of patients treated in routine practice was more severe, the results observed with mepolizumab are broadly consistent with RCTs.

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.

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.

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.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).

CONCLUSION

There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

Recent advances in the treatment of childhood asthma: a clinical pharmacology perspective

INTRODUCTION

Childhood asthma is a complex heterogenous inflammatory disease that can pose a large burden on patients and their caregivers. There is a strong need to adapt asthma treatment to the individual patient taking into account underlying inflammatory profiles, moving from a 'one size fits all' approach toward a much-needed personalized approach.

AREAS COVERED

This review article aims to provide an overview of recent advances in the management and treatment of pediatric asthma, including novel insights on the molecular heterogeneity of childhood asthma, the emergence of biologicals to treat severe asthma, and innovative e-health and home monitoring techniques to make asthma management more convenient and accessible.

EXPERT OPINION

Molecular technologies have provided new treatment leads. E-health and home monitoring technologies have helped to gain more insights into disease dynamics and improve adherence to treatment while bringing health care to the patient. However, uncontrolled childhood asthma is still a major unmet clinical need and precision-medicine approaches are still scarce in clinical practice. Advanced omics methods may help researchers or clinicians to more accurately phenotype and treat subtypes of childhood asthma and gain more insight into the complexity of the disease.

Galectin-10 as a Potential Biomarker for Eosinophilic Diseases

Galectin-10 is a member of the lectin family and one of the most abundant cytoplasmic proteins in human eosinophils. Except for some myeloid leukemia cells, basophils, and minor T cell populations, galectin-10 is exclusively present in eosinophils in the human body. Galectin-10 forms Charcot–Leyden crystals, which are observed in various eosinophilic diseases. Accumulating studies have indicated that galectin-10 acts as a new biomarker for disease activity, diagnosis, and treatment effectiveness in asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, rhinitis, sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The extracellular release of galectin-10 is not mediated through conventional secretory processes (piecemeal degranulation or exocytosis), but rather by extracellular trap cell death (ETosis), which is an active cell death program. Eosinophils undergoing ETosis rapidly disintegrate their plasma membranes to release the majority of galectin-10. Therefore, elevated galectin-10 levels in serum and tissue suggest a high degree of eosinophil ETosis. To date, several studies have shown that galectin-10/Charcot–Leyden crystals are more than just markers for eosinophilic inflammation, but play functional roles in immunity. In this review, we focus on the close relationship between eosinophils and galectin-10, highlighting this protein as a potential new biomarker in eosinophilic diseases.

Mepolizumab Reduces Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Flares Irrespective of Blood Eosinophil Count and Interleukin-5

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) antibody, reduces disease flares in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). Factors predicting treatment response are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess mepolizumab efficacy by baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC) and serum IL-5 level in patients with HES.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis used data from the phase III study assessing mepolizumab in patients with HES (NCT02836496). Patients 12 years old or older, with HES for 6 or more months, 2 or more flares in the previous year, and BEC ≥1,000 cells/μL at screening were randomized (1:1) to 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab (300 mg) or placebo, plus baseline HES therapy, for 32 weeks. The proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more flares (wk 32), annualized flare rate, and proportion of patients with change from baseline in Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) item 3 (wk 32), were analyzed by baseline BEC (<1500/≥1500 to <2500/≥2500 cells/μL). Flare outcomes were assessed by baseline serum IL-5 (<7.81/≥7.81 pg/mL).

RESULTS

Across baseline BEC subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more flares by 63% to 90% and flare rate by 58% to 84% (treatment-by-eosinophil interaction P = .76 and P = .90, respectively); patients had improved BFI item 3 score with mepolizumab versus placebo (cells/μL: <1,500: 54% vs 37%; ≥1,500 to <2,500: 47% vs 31%; ≥2,500: 61% vs 0%; treatment-by-eosinophil interaction P = .42). Most patients had undetectable baseline serum IL-5 levels; among these, mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the proportion of patients with 1 or more flares (77%) and flare rate (67%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab was efficacious in the patients with HES studied, irrespective of baseline BEC. Undetectable IL-5 levels should not preclude mepolizumab treatment.

Genome-wide association study identifies kallikrein 5 in type 2 inflammation-low asthma

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies of type 2 (T2) cytokine-related neutralizing antibodies in asthma have identified a substantial subset of patients with low levels of T2 inflammation who do not benefit from T2 cytokine neutralizing antibody treatment. Non type 2 mechanisms are poorly understood in asthma but represent the redefined unmet medical need.

OBJECTIVE

To gain understanding of the genetic contribution to T2-low asthma.

METHODS

We utilized an unbiased genome-wide association study (GWAS) of moderate-severe asthma patients stratified by T2 serum biomarker periostin. We also performed additional expression and biological analysis for the top genetic hit.

RESULTS

This analysis identified a novel protective SNP at chr19q13.41 which is selectively associated with T2-low asthma and establishes KLK5 as the causal gene mediating this association. Heterozygous carriers of the SNP have reduced KLK5 expression. KLK5 is secreted by human bronchial epithelial cells and elevated in asthma bronchial alveolar lavage. T2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-13 downregulate KLK5 in human bronchial epithelial cells. KLK5, dependent on its catalytic function, induces epithelial chemokine/cytokine expression. Lastly, overexpression of KLK5 in airway, or lack of an endogenous KLK5 inhibitor, SPINK5, leads to spontaneous airway neutrophilic inflammation.

CONCLUSION

Our data identifies KLK5 as the causal gene at a novel locus at chr19q13.41 associated with T2-low asthma.

Obesity and Asthma

Obesity is a major risk factor for the development of asthma, and the prevalence of obesity is higher in people with asthma than in the general population. Obese people often have severe asthma-recent studies in the United States suggest that 60% of adults with severe asthma are obese. Multiple mechanisms link obesity and asthma, which are discussed in this article, and these pathways contribute to different phenotypes of asthma among people with obesity. From a practical aspect, changes in physiology and immune markers affect diagnosis and monitoring of disease activity in people with asthma and obesity. Obesity also affects response to asthma medications and is associated with an increased risk of co-morbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea, all of which may affect asthma control. Obese people may be at elevated risk of exacerbations related to increased risk of severe disease in response to viral infections. Interventions that target improved dietary quality, exercise, and weight loss are likely to be particularly helpful for this patient population.

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

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

Utilizing Predictive Inflammatory Markers for Guiding the Use of Biologicals in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction. Up to ten percent of asthmatics have severe asthma, and many remain uncontrolled despite optimal medical management. With our increased understanding of the heterogeneity of asthma and its complex pathophysiology, several biomarkers have been developed and in the recent past, several biologic therapies for severe asthma have been developed and are now in widespread use. Although these biological agents have shown great benefit in treating severe asthma, not all patients respond equally well, and some do not derive any benefit. As much of the current literature of these medications have not assessed biomarkers or have used different cutoffs, it is often challenging to decide the best medication for an individual patient. Here, we review common asthma subtypes, current available biologic therapies for asthma, the clinical application of currently available type 2 biomarkers, as well as summarizing the evidence on how patient characteristics and biomarkers can help with choosing the optimal biologic for a patient that has the highest likelihood of success.

2021 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of severe asthma

Advances in the understanding that severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease and in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of asthma, with the identification of different phenotypes and endotypes, have allowed new approaches for the diagnosis and characterization of the disease and have resulted in relevant changes in pharmacological management. In this context, the definition of severe asthma has been established, being differentiated from difficult-to-control asthma. These recommendations address this topic and review advances in phenotyping, use of biomarkers, and new treatments for severe asthma. Emphasis is given to topics regarding personalized management of the patient and selection of biologicals, as well as the importance of evaluating the response to treatment. These recommendations apply to adults and children with severe asthma and are targeted at physicians involved in asthma treatment. A panel of 17 Brazilian pulmonologists was invited to review recent evidence on the diagnosis and management of severe asthma, adapting it to the Brazilian reality. Each of the experts was responsible for reviewing a topic or question relevant to the topic. In a second phase, four experts discussed and structured the texts produced, and, in the last phase, all experts reviewed and approved the present manuscript and its recommendations.

Variability of Type 2 inflammatory markers guiding biologic therapy of severe asthma: A 5-year retrospective study from a single tertiary hospital

Background

Currently, biotherapy is mainly administered to treat patients with severe asthma with the Type 2 (T2) inflammation phenotype. The variability of T2 inflammatory markers remains poorly understood.

Objective

We aimed to describe the individual distributions of different biomarkers at varying thresholds and their variation patterns in participants with severe asthma.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of participants who had completed 2 or more fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and peripheral blood eosinophil counts in our centre within 5 years. The individual distribution of biomarkers (blood or sputum eosinophils, FeNO, and serum total IgE) with repeated measurements at different thresholds was analysed. The varied patterns of biomarkers were analysed by cluster analysis.

Results

A total of 241 eligible participants were screened. Through long-term longitudinal multiple measurements, we found that approximately 50% of severe asthmatics had blood eosinophil levels fluctuating around the threshold defined by biological agents. FeNO persisted at levels >19.5 ppb or 25 ppb in more than half of patients; about 30% of participants crossed this threshold. In our centre, 47.4% of participants consistently exceeded sputum eosinophils >3%, and 47.4% of patients crossed this threshold. Approximately 66.7% of participants had more than 50% alterations of serum total IgE, and 98.1% of participants continued to have IgE levels greater than 30 IU/mL. We used cluster analysis to classify variability and levels of FeNO and blood eosinophils and identified 4 patient clusters. Cluster 1 can be summarised as T2 severe asthma with low blood eosinophil levels and stability. Cluster 2 can be summarised as asthma with continuous increase and small fluctuations in various T2 inflammatory markers. Cluster 3 can be summarised as a non/low-T2 inflammatory phenotype. Cluster 4 can be summarised as a stable, moderate T2 inflammatory phenotype.

Conclusion

We identified the distributions and variable patterns of the T2 inflammatory markers currently used to guide asthma biotherapy in clinical practice. The longitudinal comprehensive multiple assessments of T2 inflammatory markers provide support for initiating biologic therapy patients with severe asthma whose biomarker levels vary.

Eosinophils as Drivers of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Endotypes or Plasticity?

Asthma is now recognized as a heterogeneous disease, encompassing different phenotypes driven by distinct pathophysiological mechanisms called endotypes. Common phenotypes of asthma, referred to as eosinophilic asthma, are characterized by the presence of eosinophilia. Eosinophils are usually considered invariant, terminally differentiated effector cells and have become a primary therapeutic target in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) and other eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs). Biological treatments that target eosinophils reveal an unexpectedly complex role of eosinophils in asthma, including in SEA, suggesting that "not all eosinophils are equal". In this review, we address our current understanding of the role of eosinophils in asthma with regard to asthma phenotypes and endotypes. We further address the possibility that different SEA phenotypes may involve differences in eosinophil biology. We discuss how these differences could arise through eosinophil "endotyping", viz. adaptations of eosinophil function imprinted during their development, or through tissue-induced plasticity, viz. local adaptations of eosinophil function through interaction with their lung tissue niches. In doing so, we also discuss opportunities, technical challenges, and open questions that, if addressed, might provide considerable benefits in guiding the choice of the most efficient precision therapies of SEA and, by extension, other EADs.

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

The present prevailing inflammatory paradigm in asthma is of T2-high inflammation orchestrated by key inflammatory cells like Type 2 helper lymphocytes, innate lymphoid cells group 2 and associated cytokines. Eosinophils are key components of this T2 inflammatory pathway and have become key therapeutic targets. Real-world evidence on the predominant T2-high nature of severe asthma is emerging. Various inflammatory biomarkers have been adopted in clinical practice to aid asthma characterization including airway measures such as bronchoscopic biopsy and lavage, induced sputum analysis, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Blood measures like eosinophil counts have also gained widespread usage and multicomponent algorithms combining different parameters are now appearing. There is also growing interest in potential future biomarkers including exhaled volatile organic compounds, micro RNAs and urinary biomarkers. Additionally, there is a growing realisation that asthma is a heterogeneous state with numerous phenotypes and associated treatable traits. These may show particular inflammatory patterns and merit-specific management approaches that could improve asthma patient outcomes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma management but their use earlier in the course of disease is being advocated. Recent evidence suggests potential roles for ICS in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) for as needed use in mild asthma whilst maintenance and reliever therapy regimes have gained widespread acceptance. Other anti-inflammatory strategies including ultra-fine particle ICS, leukotriene receptor antagonists and macrolide antibiotics may show efficacy in particular phenotypes too. Monoclonal antibody biologic therapies have recently entered clinical practice with significant impacts on asthma outcomes. Understanding of the efficacy and use of those agents is becoming clearer with a growing body of real-world evidence as is their potential applicability to other treatable comorbid traits. In conclusion, the evolving understanding of T2 driven inflammation alongside a treatable traits disease model is enhancing therapeutic approaches to address inflammation in asthma.

Treating severe asthma: Targeting the IL-5 pathway

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes based on clinical, functional or inflammatory parameters. In particular, the eosinophilic phenotype is associated with type 2 inflammation and increased levels of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13). Monoclonal antibodies that target the eosinophilic inflammatory pathways (IL-5R and IL-5), namely mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab, are effective and safe for severe eosinophilic asthma. Eosinophils threshold represents the most indicative biomarker for response to treatment with all three monoclonal antibodies. Improvement in asthma symptoms scores, lung function, the number of exacerbations, history of late-onset asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, low oral corticosteroids use and low body mass index represent predictive clinical markers of response. Novel Omics studies are emerging with proteomics data and exhaled breath analyses. These may prove useful as biomarkers of response and non-response biologics. Moreover, future biomarker studies need to be undertaken in paediatric patients affected by severe asthma. The choice of appropriate biologic therapy for severe asthma remains challenging. The importance of finding biomarkers that can predict response continuous an open issue that needs to be further explored. This review describes the clinical effects of targeting the IL-5 pathway in severe asthma in adult and paediatric patients, focusing on predictors of response and non-response.

Real-world Omalizumab and Mepolizumab treated difficult asthma phenotypes and their clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab and Mepolizumab are biologic drugs with proven efficacy in clinical trials. However, a better understanding of their real-world effectiveness in severe asthma management is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the real-world effectiveness of Omalizumab and Mepolizumab, elucidate the clinical phenotypes of patients treated with these drugs, identify baseline characteristics associated with biologic response and assess the spectrum of responses to these medications.

METHODS

Using real-world clinical data, we retrospectively phenotyped biologic naïve patients from the Wessex AsThma CoHort of difficult asthma (N = 478) commenced on Omalizumab (N = 105) or Mepolizumab (N = 62) compared to severe asthma patients not receiving biologics (SNB, N = 178). We also assessed multiple clinical endpoints and identified features associated with response.

RESULTS

Compared to SNB, Omalizumab patients were younger, diagnosed with asthma earlier, and more likely to have rhinitis. Conversely, compared to SNB, Mepolizumab patients were predominantly older males, diagnosed with asthma later, and more likely to have nasal polyposis but less dysfunctional breathing. Both treatments reduced exacerbations, Acute Healthcare Encounters [AHE] (emergency department or hospital admissions), maintenance oral corticosteroid dose, and improved Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ6) scores. Omalizumab response was independently associated with more baseline exacerbations (p = .024) but fewer AHE (p = .050) and absence of anxiety (p = .008). Lower baseline ACQ6 was independently associated with Mepolizumab response (p = .007). A composite group of non-responders demonstrated significantly more psychopathologies and worse baseline subjective disease compared to responder groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In a difficult asthma cohort, Omalizumab and Mepolizumab were used in distinct clinical phenotypes but were both multidimensionally efficacious. Certain baseline clinical characteristics were associated with poorer biologic responses, such as psychological co-morbidity, which may assist clinicians in biologic selection. These characteristics also emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches to support these patients.

Real-world mepolizumab in the prospective severe asthma REALITI-A study: initial analysis

Introduction

Efficacy of mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, was demonstrated in randomised controlled trials; data on its real-world impact in routine clinical practice are starting to emerge. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab prescribed for patients in the real world.

Methods

REALITI-A is a global, prospective, observational cohort study, collecting data from routine healthcare visits from patients with asthma. Patients newly prescribed mepolizumab for severe asthma with 12 months of relevant medical history pre-mepolizumab (collected retrospectively) were enrolled. An initial analysis of data from early initiators who had completed 1 year of follow-up (as of February 28, 2019) was conducted. The primary objective was to compare the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS) and/or hospitalisation and/or emergency department visit) before and after mepolizumab; exacerbations requiring hospitalisation and/or emergency department visit and change in maintenance OCS use were secondary objectives. Treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Results

Overall, 368 mepolizumab-treated patients were included. Rates of clinically significant exacerbations were reduced by 69% from 4.63 per person per year pre-treatment to 1.43 per person per year during follow-up (p<0.001), as were those requiring hospitalisation and/or emergency department visit (from 1.14 to 0.27 per person per year; 77% reduction). In 159 patients with maintenance OCS dose data available during the pre-treatment period, median daily dose decreased from 10.0 (pre-treatment) to 5.0 mg·day⁻¹ by week 21–24 of follow-up, sustained until week 53–56. No new safety signals were reported.

Conclusion

These data demonstrate that the effectiveness of mepolizumab is consistent with clinical trial results under real-world settings, with significant reductions in exacerbations and daily maintenance OCS dose.

Mepolizumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in the controlled environment of clinical trials. These initial data from the prospective REALITI-A study show that similar results are obtained in a real-world setting.https://bit.ly/3hINnFO

Real-life effectiveness of mepolizumab in patients with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma and multiple comorbidities

Background

Data on mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (EA) and comorbidities are needed to assess whether randomized controlled trial results are applicable in the real world.

Objective

To evaluate real-life effectiveness and the presence/absence of predictors of treatment response in patients with one or more comorbidities (nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome, obesity, bronchiectasis) who received mepolizumab (MEPO) for the treatment of severe EA.

Methods

We performed a single-center retrospective study in patients with severe asthma and presence of comorbidities treated with mepolizumab at the respiratory outpatient clinic, Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele, Catania, Italy. Health records of 31 severe asthmatic patients were retrieved and analyzed. Asthma control test (ACT) score, blood eosinophil count, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), FEV₁% of predicted and FEV₁/FVC (Forced Vital Capacity) ratio, oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage, and exacerbations were recorded at baseline (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T3), 9 (T6), and 12 months (T12). Clinical response was defined when 3 of these 4 criteria were fulfilled: i) 30% exacerbation decrease; ii) 80% blood eosinophilia reduction; iii) 3 point ACT increase; iv) FEV₁ increase ≥200 mL.

Results

83.87% of patients were classified as responsive to MEPO treatment. Substantial depletion of the blood eosinophils (>80%) was found in 87.1% of patients, FEV₁ > 200 mL was seen in 54.84% of patients, a 3-point ACT improvement from baseline was recorded in 80.65% 25 of patients and a 30% reduction of exacerbations rates was seen in 96.77% of patients. Moreover, the majority 38.71% of patients met 3/4 parameters after 12 months. Neither the comorbidities nor other characteristics (sex, BMI, age, smoking) influenced treatment response.

Conclusions

MEPO in patients with severe EA is effective regardless of the presence of comorbidities.

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

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

Mepolizumab effectiveness and identification of super-responders in severe asthma

Severe asthma is a high-burden disease. Real-world data on mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma is needed to assess whether the data from randomised controlled trials are applicable in a broader population.The Australian Mepolizumab Registry (AMR) was established with an aim to assess the use, effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma in Australia.Patients (n=309) with severe eosinophilic asthma (median age 60 years, 58% female) commenced mepolizumab. They had poor symptom control (median Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score of 3.4), frequent exacerbations (median three courses of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in the previous 12 months), and 47% required daily OCS. Median baseline peripheral blood eosinophil level was 590 cells·µL^-1 Comorbidities were common: allergic rhinitis 63%, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease 52%, obesity 46%, nasal polyps 34%.Mepolizumab treatment reduced exacerbations requiring OCS compared with the previous year (annualised rate ratio 0.34 (95% CI 0.29-0.41); p<0.001) and hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.46 (95% CI 0.33-0.63); p<0.001). Treatment improved symptom control (median ACQ-5 reduced by 2.0 at 6 months), quality of life and lung function. Higher blood eosinophil levels (p=0.003) and later age of asthma onset (p=0.028) predicted a better ACQ-5 response to mepolizumab, whilst being male (p=0.031) or having body mass index ≥30 (p=0.043) predicted a lesser response. Super-responders (upper 25% of ACQ-5 responders, n=61, 24%) had a higher T2 disease burden and fewer comorbidities at baseline.Mepolizumab therapy effectively reduces the significant and long-standing disease burden faced by patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in a real-world setting.

Factors that affect blood eosinophil counts in a non-asthmatic population: Post hoc analysis of data from Brazil

Background

Improved understanding of the normal range of blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and conditions that influence them in non-asthmatic individuals should allow more accurate estimation of the threshold at which eosinophilic disease should be considered, diagnosed, and treated. This analysis investigated the impact of atopy, smoking, and parasitic infection on BEC.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of non-asthmatic subjects from a case-control study (CONEP 450/10) conducted at the Program for Control of Asthma in Bahia (ProAR). Participant BECs were measured at baseline; correlations between predefined risk factors and BEC were assessed via univariate and stratified analysis.

Results

Of the 454 participants included, 3% were helminth parasite-positive, 18% were non-helminth parasite-positive; and 450 had BEC data. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) BEC was 152 (96, 252) cells/μL. Any positive skin prick test, elevated total immunoglobulin E, allergic rhinitis, and being a current smoker were all individually associated with higher BEC (p < 0.05) compared with BEC in participants without these factors, but having a non-helminthic parasitic infection was not. Participants with all 4 risk factors that were associated with higher BEC had a median (IQR) BEC of 192 cells/μL (94, 416) versus 106 cells/μL (70, 164) for those with no risk factors.

Conclusions

In non-asthmatic subjects, atopy, allergic rhinitis, and current smoking status were associated with higher BEC compared with subjects without these factors, but BEC values were well below the threshold commonly accepted as normal. Therefore, BEC should be interpreted in the context of an individual's medical conditions and other BEC-influencing factors.

Prediction of response to biological treatment with monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma

In recent years, major developments have occurred in severe asthma management. Different asthma phenotypes and subgroups have been identified and new treatment options have become available. A total of five monoclonal antibodies are currently approved in severe asthma treatment: omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. These drugs have been shown to reduce exacerbations and to have an oral corticosteroid-sparing effect in many severe asthma patients. However, biological treatment is not successful in all patients and should be discontinued in non-responsive patients. Treating the right patient with the right biologic, and therefore biologic response prediction, has become a major point of interest in severe asthma management. A variety of response outcomes is utilized in the different clinical trials, as well as a huge range of potential predicting factors. Also, regarding the timing of the response evaluation, there are considerable differences between studies. This review summarizes the results from studies on predicting responses and responders to biological treatment in severe asthma, taking into account clinical, functional and inflammatory parameters assessed prior to the start of treatment as well as following a few months of therapy. In addition, future perspectives are discussed, highlighting the need for more research to improve patient identification and treatment responses in the field of biological treatment in severe asthma.