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

Mepolizumab in Patients With Severe Asthma and Comorbidities: 1-Year REALITI-A Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma is complex; comorbidities may influence disease outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess mepolizumab effectiveness in patients with severe asthma and comorbidities.

METHODS

REALITI-A was a 2-year international, prospective study enrolling adults with asthma newly prescribed mepolizumab (100 mg subcutaneously) at physician's discretion. This post hoc analysis assessed 1-year outcomes stratified by comorbidities at enrollment: chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), depression/anxiety, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Outcomes included the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs; requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or hospital/emergency room admission) between the 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment and changes from baseline in daily maintenance oral corticosteroid dose (mo 12), Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score (mo 12) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; mo 9-12).

RESULTS

At enrollment (n = 822), 321 of 822 (39%), 309 of 801 (39%), 203 of 785 (26%), and 81 of 808 (10%) patients had comorbid CRSwNP, GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD, respectively. Post- versus pre-treatment across all comorbidity subgroups: the rate of CSEs decreased by 63% or more; among 298 (39%) patients on maintenance oral corticosteroids at baseline, median dose decreased by 50% or more; Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score decreased by 0.63 or more points; FEV1 increased by 74 mL or more. Patients with versus without CRSwNP had the greatest improvements (eg, rate of CSEs decreased by 75%). Patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, or COPD had greater improvements than those with the respective comorbidities, except for FEV1 in patients with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab improved disease outcomes in patients with severe asthma irrespective of comorbidities, with additional benefit for patients with CRSwNP.

Long-Term Real-World Outcomes of Mepolizumab and Benralizumab Among Biologic-Naive Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Experience of 3 Years' Therapy

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapies such as mepolizumab and benralizumab offer treatment options for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although long-term real-world data on their use are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment among biologic-naive patients with SEA over 36 months and describe the incidence of super-response at 12 and 36 months, identifying potential predictive factors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of patients with SEA who were given mepolizumab or benralizumab from May 2017 to December 2019, and who completed 36 months of therapy. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and medication use were described. Data on clinical outcomes, including maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, annual exacerbation rate (AER), mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6), and eosinophil count were collected at baseline and at 12 and 36 months. Super-response was evaluated at 12 and 36 months.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were included. Maintenance OCS use significantly improved from baseline (5.3 mg/d) to 12 months (2.4 mg/d, P < .0001) and 36 months (0.6 mg/d; P < .0001). Annual exacerbation rate decreased from baseline (5.8) to 12 months (0.9; P < .0001) and 36 months (1.2; P < .0001). Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, ACQ-6, and eosinophil count significantly improved from baseline to 12 and 36 months. Twenty-nine patients demonstrated super-response at 12 months. Compared with those without a super-response, these patients had better baseline AER (4.7 vs 6.5; P = .009), mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (3.41 vs 2.54; P = .002), and ACQ-6 (3.38 vs 4.06; P = .03) scores. Most maintained a super-response up to 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are associated with significant improvements in OCS use, AER, and asthma control in real-world cohorts for up to 36 months, providing insight into long-term use for SEA.

Comprehensive Characterization of Difficult-to-Treat Asthma Reveals Near Absence of T2-Low Status

BACKGROUND

Asthma is conventionally stratified as type 2 inflammation (T2)-high or T2-low disease. Identifying T2 status has therapeutic implications for patient management, but a real-world understanding of this T2 paradigm in difficult-to-treat and severe asthma remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of T2-high status in difficult-to-treat asthma patients using a multicomponent definition and compare clinical and pathophysiologic characteristics between patients classified as T2-high and T2-low.

METHODS

We evaluated 388 biologic-naive patients from the Wessex Asthma Cohort of difficult asthma (WATCH) study in the United Kingdom. Type 2-high asthma was defined as 20 parts per billion or greater FeNO , 150 cells/μL or greater peripheral blood eosinophils, the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids, and/or clinically allergy-driven asthma.

RESULTS

This multicomponent assessment identified T2-high asthma in 93% of patients (360 of 388). Body mass index, inhaled corticosteroid dose, asthma exacerbations, and common comorbidities did not differ by T2 status. Significantly worse airflow limitation was found in T2-high compared with T2-low patients (FEV1/FVC 65.9% vs 74.6%). Moreover, 75% of patients defined as having T2-low asthma had raised peripheral blood eosinophils within the preceding 10 years, which left only seven patients (1.8%) who had never had T2 signals. Incorporation of sputum eosinophilia 2% or greater into the multicomponent definition in a subset of 117 patients with induced sputum data similarly found that 96% (112 of 117) met criteria for T2-high asthma, 50% of whom (56 of 112) had sputum eosinophils 2% or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all patients with difficult-to-treat asthma have T2-high disease; less than 2% of patients never display T2-defining criteria. This highlights a need to assess T2 status comprehensively in clinical practice before labeling a patient with difficult-to-treat asthma as T2-low.

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

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

Canadian multidisciplinary expert consensus on the use of biologics in upper airways: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective.

METHODS

A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61.

RESULTS

After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease.

CONCLUSION

This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

Relationship Between the Response to Antibody Therapy and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Disorders in Patients with Severe Asthma

Purpose

Asthma is associated with a high prevalence of psychopathological disorders, especially depressive disorders or anxiety. In patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, monoclonal antibody (mAb)-therapy positively influenced control of mental disorders. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of antibody therapy on the burden of these mental diseases depending on responder status.

Patients and Methods

Data were collected retrospectively in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma (n = 82) prior to mAb-therapy ("baseline") (omalizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab or mepolizumab). Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) were detected at baseline using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), as well as general sociodemographic data and lung function parameters. At 6-month (±3 month) follow-up, the burden of psychopathological symptoms under mAb-therapy was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-2 (GAD-2). Response status was classified using the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS), assessing exacerbations, oral corticosteroid usage and asthma control test (ACT) score. Predictors for non-response to mAb-therapy were identified using linear regression analysis.

Results

Patients with severe asthma suffered from symptoms of MDD/GAD more often compared to the general population, with a higher prevalence among mAb therapy non-responders. mAb-responders exhibited a declining burden of MDD, better quality of life (QoL), less exacerbations, better lung function and better disease control compared to non-responders. A history of symptoms of depression was identified as a predictor for non-response to mAb-therapy.

Conclusion

Asthma symptoms and psychological problems are linked and more prevalent in our cohort of severe asthma patients than in the general population. Patients with signs of MDD/GAD before mAb-therapy show less mAb therapy response suggesting a negative impact of prior psychological problems on treatment response. In some patients, the score on MDD/GAD was caused by severe asthma - here symptoms decreased after effective treatment.

Biologics for severe asthma: The real-world evidence, effectiveness of switching, and prediction factors for the efficacy

Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized controlled trials have established clinical evidence, but a significant portion of patients with severe asthma in real-life settings would have been excluded from those trials. Therefore, real-world research is necessary, and there is a growing body of information about the long-term efficacy and safety of biologics. Multiple clinical phenotypes of severe asthma exist, and it is crucial to choose patients based on their phenotypes. Blood eosinophil count is an important biomarker for anti-IL-5 therapies, and FeNO and eosinophil counts serve as prediction markers for dupilumab. Reliable markers for predicting response, however, have not yet been fully established for omalizumab. Identification of clinical or biological prediction factors is crucial for the path toward clinical remission because the current treatment goal includes clinical remission, which is defined as a realistic goal for remission off treatment. Additionally, since there are now multiple biologic options and overlaps in eligibility for biologics in clinical practice, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of switching the biologics is crucial. Investigations into the clinical trajectory following the cessation of biologics are another important issue. Recent research on omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab's real-world effectiveness, the prediction factor for the efficacy, and the impact of switching or discontinuation will be reviewed and discussed in this review.

Multimorbidity in Difficult Asthma: The Need for Personalised and Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Address a Difficult Breathing Syndrome

Three to ten percent of people living with asthma have difficult-to-treat asthma that remains poorly controlled despite maximum levels of guideline-based pharmacotherapy. This may result from a combination of multiple adverse health issues including aggravating comorbidities, inadequate treatment, suboptimal inhaler technique and/or poor adherence that may individually or collectively contribute to poor asthma control. Many of these are potentially "treatable traits" that can be pulmonary, extrapulmonary, behavioural or environmental factors. Whilst evidence-based guidelines lead clinicians in pharmacological treatment of pulmonary and many extrapulmonary traits, multiple comorbidities increase the burden of polypharmacy for the patient with asthma. Many of the treatable traits can be addressed with non-pharmacological approaches. In the current healthcare model, these are delivered by separate and often disjointed specialist services. This leaves the patients feeling lost in a fragmented healthcare system where clinical outcomes remain suboptimal even with the best current practice applied in each discipline. Our review aims to address this challenge calling for a paradigm change to conceptualise difficult-to-treat asthma as a multimorbid condition of a "Difficult Breathing Syndrome" that consequently needs a holistic personalised care attitude by combining pharmacotherapy with the non-pharmacological approaches. Therefore, we propose a roadmap for an evidence-based multi-disciplinary stepped care model to deliver this.

The Detrimental Clinical Associations of Anxiety and Depression with Difficult Asthma Outcomes

Difficult asthma describes asthma in which comorbidities, inadequate treatment, suboptimal inhaler technique and/or poor adherence impede good asthma control. The association of anxiety and depression with difficult asthma outcomes (exacerbations, hospital admissions, asthma control, etc.) is unclear. This study assessed the clinical associations of anxiety and depression with difficult asthma outcomes in patients with a specialist diagnosis of difficult asthma. Using real-world data, we retrospectively phenotyped patients from the Wessex Asthma Cohort of Difficult Asthma (N = 441) using clinical diagnoses of anxiety and depression against those without anxiety or depression (controls). Additionally, we stratified patients by severity of psychological distress using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We found that depression and/or anxiety were reported in 43.1% of subjects and were associated with worse disease-related questionnaire scores. Each psychological comorbidity group showed differential associations with difficult asthma outcomes. Anxiety alone (7.9%) was associated with dysfunctional breathing and more hospitalisations [anxiety, median (IQR): 0 (2) vs. controls: 0 (0)], while depression alone (11.6%) was associated with obesity and obstructive sleep apnoea. The dual anxiety and depression group (23.6%) displayed multimorbidity, worse asthma outcomes, female predominance and earlier asthma onset. Worse HADS-A scores in patients with anxiety were associated with worse subjective outcomes (questionnaire scores), while worse HADS-D scores in patients with depression were associated with worse objective (ICU admissions and maintenance oral corticosteroid requirements) and subjective outcomes. In conclusion, anxiety and depression are common in difficult asthma but exert differential detrimental effects. Difficult asthma patients with dual anxiety and depression experience worse asthma outcomes alongside worse measures of psychological distress. There is a severity-gradient association of HADS scores with worse difficult asthma outcomes. Collectively, our findings highlight the need for holistic, multidisciplinary approaches that promote early identification and management of anxiety and depression in difficult asthma patients.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

Asthma is a disease with high incidence and prevalence, and its severe form accounts for approximately 10% of asthmatics. Over the last decade, the increasing knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the disease allowed the development of biological drugs capable of sufficiently controlling symptoms and reducing the use of systemic steroids. The best-known mechanisms are those pertaining to type 2 inflammation, for which drugs were developed and studied. Those biological treatments affect crucial points of bronchial inflammation. Among the mechanisms explored, there were IgE (Omalizumab), interleukin 5 (Mepolizumab and Reslizumab), interleukin 5 receptor alpha (Benralizumab) and interleukin 4/13 receptor (Dupilumab). Under investigation and expected to be soon commercialized is the monoclonal antibody blocking the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (Tezepelumab). Seemingly under study and promising, are anti-interleukin-33 (itepekimab) and anti-suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 (astegolimab). With this study, we want to provide an overview of these drugs, paying particular attention to their mechanism of action, the main endpoints reached in clinical trials, the main results obtained in real life and some unclear points regarding their usage.

Holy Grail: the journey towards disease modification in asthma

At present, there is no cure for asthma, and treatment typically involves therapies that prevent or reduce asthma symptoms, without modifying the underlying disease. A “disease-modifying” treatment can be classed as able to address the pathogenesis of a disease, preventing progression or leading to a long-term reduction in symptoms. Such therapies have been investigated and approved in other indications, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis and immunoglobulin E-mediated allergic disease. Asthma's heterogeneous nature has made the discovery of similar therapies in asthma more difficult, although novel therapies (e.g. biologics) may have the potential to exhibit disease-modifying properties. To investigate the disease-modifying potential of a treatment, study design considerations can be made, including: appropriate end-point selection, length of trial, age of study population (key differences between adults/children in physiology, pathology and drug metabolism) and comorbidities in the patient population. Potential future focus areas for disease-modifying treatments in asthma include early assessments (e.g. to detect patterns of remodelling) and interventions for patients genetically susceptible to asthma, interventions to prevent virally induced asthma and therapies to promote a healthy microbiome. This review explores the pathophysiology of asthma, the disease-modifying potential of current asthma therapies and the direction future research may take to achieve full disease remission or prevention.

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous disease, which currently has no cure; this review explores the disease-modifying potential of asthma therapies and the direction future research may take to achieve disease remission or prevention.https://bit.ly/31AxYou

Feasibility of Discontinuing Biologics in Severe Asthma: An Algorithmic Approach

In severe asthma with type 2 (T2) inflammation, biologics targeting key mediators of T2 inflammation, including interleukin (IL)-5, IL-4/IL-13, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E, remarkably improve the management of severe asthma, providing new insights into the clinical course of asthma such as disease modification and broad modulation of T2 inflammation. Once severe asthma has become a “controllable” condition, the question of discontinuation of biologics arises due to cost and side effects. The studies on discontinuing biologics in asthma demonstrate that some of patients successfully discontinue biologics, indicating that it is a feasible option in a subset of patients. Incorporating the evidence of discontinuation, we propose the criteria for the discontinuation of biologics. Our proposed criteria for the discontinuation of biologics consist of an absence of asthma symptoms (asthma control questionnaire [ACQ] score < 1.5 or asthma control test [ACT] score > 19), no asthma exacerbations, no use of oral corticosteroids, normalized spirometry (forced exhaled volume in 1 second [FEV₁] ≥ 80%), suppressed T2 inflammation (blood eosinophil counts < 300 μL and fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] < 50 ppb), and control of asthma comorbidities. Real-world evidence verified a subset of patients achieving highly well-controlled conditions after use of biologics, namely super-responders, who are candidates for the discontinuation of biologics. If super-responders meet all of the criteria, they are allowed to discontinue biological therapies. Our proposed algorithm may support physicians’ treatment decisions for patients receiving biologics.

Real-world benefits of biologics for asthma: Exacerbation events and systemic corticosteroid use

Background

Studies have shown the efficacy of asthma biologics in real-world settings, confirming the generalizability of randomized controlled trial (RCT) results, but studies on more than one biologic are scarce. Accordingly, little is known about the different background characteristics in users of asthma biologics. This study aimed to describe the backgrounds of asthma patients using biologics (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) and examine the effectiveness of these biologics for reducing asthma exacerbations and total systemic corticosteroid doses.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using self-controlled methods to evaluate the association between the use of biologics and reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations using a large-scale health insurance claims database in Japan.

Results

Of 355 continuously treated asthma patients using biologics, 119, 82, 69, and 85 patients were assigned to the omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics differed among users of biologics. The incidence ratios of exacerbations and hospitalizations during biologics use were 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.74) and 0.65 (0.55-0.77) compared with the period before biologics use. The total systemic corticosteroid dose equivalent to prednisolone per person-year was reduced from a median of 600 [interquartile range, 90-1713] mg to 164 [0-1010] mg (P < .001). Similar results were obtained for individual biologics with a few exceptions.

Conclusions

The background characteristics of biologics users differed in a real-world setting. Our results confirmed findings from RCTs demonstrating that each biologic (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) is associated with decreased exacerbation numbers and corticosteroid-sparing effects, even outside of the controlled settings of RCTs.

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.

Oral Corticosteroids Dependence and Biologic Drugs in Severe Asthma: Myths or Facts? A Systematic Review of Real-World Evidence

Airway inflammation represents an important characteristic in asthma, modulating airflow limitation and symptom control, and triggering the risk of asthma exacerbation. Thus, although corticosteroids represent the cornerstone for the treatment of asthma, severe patients may be dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Fortunately, the current humanised monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and reslizumab have been proven to induce an OCS-sparing effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus overcoming the problem of OCS dependence in severe asthma. Nevertheless, a large discrepancy has been recognized between selected patients enrolled in RCTs and non-selected asthmatic populations in real-world settings. It is not possible to exclude that the OCS-sparing effect of mAbs resulting from the RCTs could be different than the real effect resulting in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and correlation analysis to assess whether mAbs are effective in eliciting an OCS-sparing effect and overcoming the OCS dependence in severe asthmatic patients in real-world settings. Overall, real-world studies support the evidence that OCS dependence is a real condition that, however, can be found only in a small number of really severe asthmatic patients. In most patients, the dependence on OCS can be related to modifying factors that, when adequately modulated, may lead to a significant reduction or suspension of OCS maintenance. Conversely, in severe asthmatics in whom OCS resistance is proved by a high daily dose intake, mAbs allow reversion of the OCS dependence, leading to the suspension of OCS therapy in most patients or >50% reduction in the daily OCS dose.