Real-World Efficacy of Treatment with Benralizumab, Dupilumab, Mepolizumab and Reslizumab for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of fluticasone propionate/formoterol and fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on adolescents with chronic bronchial obstruction

Background

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) (ICS/LABA) has shown superiority in improving lung function (FEV1) compared with an ICS alone. The clinical effect of a ICS/LABA combination depends on the fine-particle fraction and the pulmonary deposition.

Objective

We sought to compare the efficacy of 2 combinations of an ICS and LABA, namely, fluticasone propionate (FP) and formoterol (FORM) (FP/FORM) and fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VI) (FF/VI), in asthmatic adolescents with chronic bronchial obstruction.

Methods

FP/FORM (125 μg/5 μg, 2 doses twice daily via the k-haler [Mundipharma, Cambridge, UK]) and FF/VI (92 μg/22 μg, once daily via the Ellipta inhaler [GlaxoSmithKline]) were administered to adolescents aged 12 to 17 years who required regular antiasthmatic medication and had a ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) less than -1.65 SD in a 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. The primary efficacy end point was change in FEV1 compared with baseline. Secondary end points were FEV1/FVC ratio, maximal expiratory flow at 50% of the FVC, impulse oscillometry indices respiratory resistance at 5 Hz (R5), difference between R5 and respiratory resistance at 20 Hz (R20), area of reactance, and Asthma Control Test score.

Results

Both ICS/LABA combinations resulted in a significant improvement in FEV1 and maximal expiratory flow at 50% of the FVC z scores without any significant difference between FP/FORM and FF/VI, with 40% of patients with either treatment achieving a normal prebronchodilator FEV1/FVC z score. Neither area of reactance nor difference between R5 and R20 improved significantly with either treatment.

Conclusion

Both ICS/LABA combinations demonstrated significant improvements in FEV1z score. More than one-third of the asthmatic adolescents with prolonged bronchial obstruction achieved a normal prebronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio.

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.

Efficacy of Biologics in Patients with Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is challenging. Biological therapies have been reported as adjunctive treatments for ABPA, primarily in case series or case reports. This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of biologics for managing ABPA both qualitatively and quantitatively.

METHODS

All articles on APBA published in October 2023 were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Embase databases. The effects of interest were the mean changes from baseline for outcomes, including exacerbation rates, oral corticosteroids usage (OCS), and total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels. Reported outcomes were quantitatively synthesized by usual or individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022373396.

RESULTS

A total of 86 studies were included in the systematic review including 346 patients. Sixteen studies on omalizumab were pooled for the usual meta-analysis. Omalizumab therapy significantly reduced exacerbation rates (- 2.29 [95%CI - 3.32, - 1.26]), OCS dosage (- 10.91 mg [95%CI - 18.98, - 2.85]), and total IgE levels (- 273.07 IU/mL [95%CI - 379.30, - 166.84]), meanwhile improving FEV1% predicted (10.09% [95%CI 6.62, 13.55]). Thirty-one studies on dupilumab, mepolizumab, or benralizumab were pooled to perform an IPD meta-analysis, retrospectively. Both dupilumab and mepolizumab significantly reduced exacerbation rates, OCS, and total IgE levels. Benralizumab showed a similar trend, but it was not statistically significant. Tezepelumab showed weak evidence of its effects on ABPA. All five biologics led to milder clinical symptoms (e.g., cough, wheezing) with serious adverse effects that happened once in omalizumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate the clinical benefit of omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab in patients with ABPA. Further randomized, controlled studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of Multiple-Flows Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Its Clinical Significance in Severe Asthmatic Patients Treated with Biologics: A Prospective Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

Specific biomarkers, such as eosinophilia in peripheral blood or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), can guide us in the choice of biologic therapy, allowing a more personalized approach. Although there are multiple evidences in the literature about the role of FeNO as a predictor of response to different biologic treatments, there are no data on the relationship between FeNO changes and clinical response to the four biologic drugs currently in use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and to compare the expression of multiple-flows FeNO parameters in a cohort of patients with SA before and during the treatment with biologics to evaluate the performance of these biomarkers in predicting the achievement of clinical remission.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 50 patients with severe asthma eligible for biologic therapy. Patients underwent clinical and functional monitoring at baseline (T0) and after 1, 6, and 12 months of treatment (T1, T6, T12), including multiple flows FeNO assessment.

RESULTS

A statistically significant reduction of FeNO50 values and J'awNO was observed only in benralizumab and dupilumab subgroups. Among biomarkers, the reduction of FeNO 50 values at T1 was associated with a higher probability of achieving clinical remission at T12 (p = 0.003), which was also confirmed by ROC curve analysis (AUC 0.758, p = 0.002; sensitivity 60% and specificity 74% for a reduction of 16 ppb).

CONCLUSION

These data confirm the potential of this biomarker in predicting clinical response to biologic treatment in patients with severe asthma in order to guide clinical decisions and evaluate a shift to other biologic therapy.

Anti-IL-5 Pathway Agents in Eosinophilic-Associated Disorders Across the Lifespan

Monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-5 pathways have revolutionized the treatment expectations for eosinophilic-associated conditions, particularly in patients with respiratory involvement. Mepolizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody), benralizumab (IL-5 receptor blocker monoclonal antibody), and reslizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody) have collectively contributed to the overall improvement of the disease burden in various conditions. Eosinophilic asthma currently boasts the most robust evidence across all age groups: all three biologics are approved for adults (aged ≥18 years); mepolizumab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also in children (aged ≥ 6 years), while bernalizumab was recently approved by the FDA for patients aged ≥6 years in the USA. In chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, subcutaneous mepolizumab is the only anti-IL-5 therapy approved so far and can be used in adult patients (aged ≥18 years). For eosinophilic esophagitis, conflicting evidence surrounds both mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab, leading to non-approval of these agents by the FDA/EMA. Recently, mepolizumab was approved for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis patients aged ≥6 years or older and for hypereosinophilic syndrome adult patients. A phase III trial proving noninferiority of benralizumab versus mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis has been recently published, while evidence on reslizumab is scant. Overall, current evidence on anti-IL-5 biologics for eosinophilic-associated disorders is mostly focused on adults, whereas data for individuals aged under 18 years and over 65 years are scarce, resulting in a lack of evidence, particularly regarding efficacy, for the use of anti-IL-5 agents in these specific patient populations. This review addresses high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world post-marketing studies regarding the use of anti-IL-5 therapies for eosinophilic-associated disorders across all age groups, spanning childhood, adulthood, and older age.

Impact of patient support programmes among patients with severe asthma treated with biological therapies: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison

INTRODUCTION

Effective treatment of severe asthma requires patient adherence to inhaled and biological medications. Previous work has shown that patient support programmes (PSP) can improve adherence in patients with chronic diseases, but the impact of PSPs in patients with severe asthma treated with biologics has not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the impact of PSPs on treatment adherence, asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with severe asthma. Embase, MEDLINE and EconLit databases were searched for studies published from 2003 (the year of the first biological approval for severe asthma) to June 2023 that described PSP participation among patients with severe asthma on biological treatment. Direct pooling of outcomes was not possible due to the heterogeneity across studies, so an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed to determine the effect of PSP participation on treatment discontinuation. The ITC used patient-level data from patients treated with benralizumab either enrolled in a PSP (VOICE study, Connect 360 PSP) or not enrolled in a PSP (Benralizumab Patient Access Programme study) in the UK.

FINDINGS

25 records of 21 studies were selected. Six studies investigated the impact of PSPs on treatment adherence, asthma control or HRQoL. All six studies reported positive outcomes for patients enrolled in PSPs; the benefits of each PSP were closely linked to the services provided. The ITC showed that patients in the Connect 360 PSP group were less likely to discontinue treatment compared with the non-PSP group (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PSPs contribute to positive clinical outcomes in patients with severe asthma on biological treatment. Future analyses will benefit from thorough descriptions of PSP services, and study designs that allow direct comparisons of patient outcomes with and without a PSP.

Brazilian guideline for the use of immunobiologicals in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps ‒ 2024 update

INTRODUCTION

Biologics targeting type 2 inflammation have revolutionized the way we treat patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP). Particularly in severe and difficult-to-control cases, these drugs have provided a new reality for these patients, allowing for the effective and safe treatment of extensive diseases that were not completely managed with the typical strategy of surgery and topical medications.

OBJECTIVES

The experience achieved with the approval of these medications by ANVISA for use in CRSwNP and the knowledge obtained regarding outcomes, adverse effects, and the ideal patient profile prompted the update of the previously published guideline, with a detailed review of the most recent scientific literature, the personal experiences of experts, and the adaptation to the reality of the Brazilian healthcare system, both public and private.

RESULTS

We proposed a new eligibility criterion for biologics in patients with CRSwNP based on four pillars of indication: the impact of the disease on the patient's life, whether in the presence of specific symptoms or in overall quality of life; the extent of sinonasal disease; the presence of type 2 comorbidities, considering other associated diseases that may also benefit from anti-T2 biologics, and the presence of biomarkers to define type 2 inflammation, especially those associated with worse disease prognoses.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative and pioneering method has two major advantages. First, it ensures a comprehensive evaluation of patients; second, it is flexible, as advancements in our understanding of the disease and changes in cost-effectiveness can be addressed by simply adjusting the required score for indication, without the need to modify the entire evaluation scheme.

Biologic therapies for severe asthma with persistent type 2 inflammation

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airways disease with reversible airflow obstruction, characterised in the majority by type 2 airway inflammation. Type 2 inflammation results in secretion of interleukin-4, -5 and -13 in the airways, recruitment of inflammatory cells (especially eosinophils and mast cells), and airway changes such as mucus hypersecretion and increased airway reactivity. Approximately 5 to 10% of people with asthma, despite optimal therapy and adherence to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2 agonists, are unable to obtain good symptom control and continue to experience exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids; this is known as 'severe asthma'. In many cases, this is associated with persistent type 2 inflammation, indicated by the persistent elevation of blood eosinophils or fractional exhaled nitric oxide. In people with severe asthma and persistent type 2 inflammation, biologic (monoclonal antibody) therapy is indicated. Biologic therapies currently available in Australia for asthma are benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. They are administered subcutaneously and are generally well tolerated. Biologic asthma therapies are very effective in improving symptoms, and reducing the rate of exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids, in people with severe asthma and persistent type 2 inflammation. Inhaled corticosteroid treatment should be continued in people using a biologic therapy.

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.

Anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5R biologics for severe asthma. Are there any differences in their effects?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective multicentre study is to describe the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα therapies and to compare their effectiveness.

METHODS

We collected and analysed results separately for anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα therapies from January 2016 until December 2021 in multidisciplinary severe asthma units. We collected demographic and clinical data, treatment with previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents, and comorbidities. We compared the number of exacerbations and admissions to the hospital, daily oral corticosteroid intake, pulmonary function tests, and Asthma Control Test scores before and after 12 months of therapy. 261 patients were included: 176 patients in the anti-IL-5 group and 85 in the anti-IL-5Rα group.

RESULTS

Both groups led to statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbations, hospital admissions, and visits to the Emergency Room. Although both groups showed a significant reduction in blood eosinophiliccount, we found a difference, although not significant, in the magnitude of reduction as benralizumab was able to decrease eosinophil counts to zero. Patients in the anti-IL-5 group achieved higher ACT scores after treatment, although this improvement was seen in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα biologics have shown similar effectiveness despite having different mechanisms of action. The anti-IL-5 group appeared to be better than benralizumab at improving ACT scores and FEV1/FVC and at reducing the number of inhalers. Although these differences were not statistically significant, it is not clear whether they may have clinical relevance and they might highlight the need for further head-to-head studies comparing these treatments.

Insights from the trends of omalizumab and mepolizumab utilization in patients with asthma: A population-based cohort study using the National Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Biologics are increasingly being used in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. However, the trends in their use for treating severe asthma in Japan remain unclear.

METHODS

The number of patients with asthma prescribed omalizumab or mepolizumab between April 2017 and March 2018 was estimated according to sex, age, and geographical region using data from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan.

RESULTS

Overall, 5,014, 3,449 and 7,977 patients were prescribed omalizumab, mepolizumab, or either combination, respectively. The total number of patients prescribed biologics displayed a bimodal distribution with peaks in their early teens and seventies. Biologics were most commonly used by male and female patients in their seventies. Prescription was 1.24 times higher in males than in females up to the teenage years, whereas it was 1.95 times higher in females than in males from their twenties onwards. Omalizumab was prescribed 1.45 times more frequently than mepolizumab, especially in pediatric patients, and was prescribed 1.96 times more often to female patients than to male patients. Regional differences were observed in the proportion of patients prescribed biologics. Correlation analysis suggested a weak relationship (r = 0.3226, p = 0.0270) between the proportion of patients prescribed biologics and board-certified allergists according to the geographic region.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, biologics are prescribed more often to older patients with severe asthma compared to those in other countries. Thus, eliminating the regional disparities in asthma treatment by specialists is necessary to provide appropriate medical care to patients with severe asthma.

Cost-effectiveness and resource use analysis of patients with asthma before and after treatment with mepolizumab in a real-life setting

OBJECTIVE

To define the cost-effectiveness and health resource use of mepolizumab in a cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in real-life conditions in Spain.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study. Patients included were diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma and treated with mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) 4-weekly for 12 months. Outcomes evaluated: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), number of exacerbations, disease control with the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), and direct and indirect cost per patient.

RESULTS

12 months after mepolizumab initiation, a significant decrease in exacerbations was shown, from a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 3.1 (2.6) to 0.7 (1.5), an increase from 4.9 (0.4) to 6.1 (0.5) in AQLQ, and from 14.9 (5.7) to 21.5 (3.9) in ACT scores. The number of cortico-dependent patients significantly decreased from 53.3% to 13.3% during this period. There was a significant decrease of 94% in the cost of hospitalization, from a mean (SD) of €4063.9 (5423.9) pretreatment to €238.6 (1306.9) post-treatment (p = 0.0003). Total costs decreased significantly from a median of €2,423.1 (1,512.8; 9,320.9) pretreatment to €1,177.5 (965.0; 1,737.8) post-treatment if mepolizumab was excluded. ICER per exacerbation avoided was €3606.9, per 3-point ACT score increase €3934.8, and per 0.5-point AQLQ score increase €3606.9.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab improves control of asthma and quality of life in patients with severe diseases in a cost-effectiveness range. The number of exacerbations decreased, and there was a clear reduction in primary care visits and hospitalizations. Further economic analyses of biological therapies for asthma are required.

A real-world disproportionality analysis of mepolizumab based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Background: Mepolizumab has been approved by the FDA for add-on maintenance treatment of severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype. Real-world studies on mepolizumab-associated adverse events are limited. The present study aimed to explore mepolizumab-related adverse events based on the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Methods: A disproportionality analysis was performed to assess the safety profile of mepolizumab based on the reports from the FAERS database between October 2015 and December 2022. Demographic information, the time to onset, the safety of long-term mepolizumab exposure as well as safety in pediatric patients were also investigated. Results: A total of 736 significant preferred terms (PTs) were identified among the 13,497 mepolizumab-associated adverse events (AEs) reports collected from the FAERS database. The frequently reported AEs including dyspnea, fatigue, and headache were in line with drug instruction and previous studies. Unexpected significant AEs such as cough, malaise, and chest discomfort were also identified. Most AEs occurred within the first month after mepolizumab initiation. Pneumonia and wheezing were frequently reported in patients with long-term mepolizumab exposure as well as in the pediatric population. Conclusion: Our results were consistent with the observations in previous clinical and real-world studies. New and unexpected AE signals of mepolizumab were also identified. Close attention should be paid to the long-term safety of mepolizumab as well as safety in the pediatric population. Prospective studies are required for optimal use of mepolizumab.

Which biologic? New findings from a real-world study

See related article

Stepwise Approach in Asthma Revisited 2023: Expert Panel Opinion of Turkish Guideline of Asthma Diagnosis and Management Group

Introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has been the cornerstone of the long-term management of asthma. ICSs either alone or in combination with long-acting beta-2 agonists have been shown to be associated with favorable asthma outcomes. However, asthma control is still reported to be below expectations all around the world. Research in the last decades focusing on the use of ICS/formoterol both as maintenance and as needed (maintenance and reliever therapy approach) showed improved asthma outcomes. As a result of recent developments, Turkish Asthma Guidelines group aimed to revise asthma treatment recommendations. In general, we recommend physicians to consider the risk factors for poor asthma outcomes, patients' compliance and expectations and then to determine "a personalized treatment plan." Importantly, the use of short-acting beta-2 agonists alone as a symptom reliever in asthma patients not using regular ICS is no longer recommended. In stepwise treatment approach, we primarily recommend to use ICS-based controllers and initiate ICS as soon as possible. We define 2 different treatment tracks in stepwise approaches as maintenance and reliever therapy or fixed-dose therapy and equally recommend each track depending on the patient's risks as well as decision of physicians in a personalized manner. For both tracks, a strong recommendation was made in favor of using add-on treatments before initiating phenotype-specific treatment in step 5. A strong recommendation was also made in favor of using biologic agents and/or aspirin treatment after desensitization in severe asthma when indicated.

Eosinophilic myocarditis: comprehensive update on pathophysiology, diagnosis, prognosis and management

Hypereosinophilic syndromes are a group of disorders secondary to the accumulation of eosinophils leading to the injury of one or more organs. Among them, eosinophilic myocarditis (EM) is a rare form of inflammatory cardiomyopathy characterized by eosinophilic infiltration into myocardial tissue and subsequent release of substances with cell membrane damage and cell destruction. The degree of infiltration is thought to depend on the underlying condition, as well as the degree and duration of eosinophil exposure and ranges from mild localized disease to diffuse multifocal infiltrates associated with myocardial necrosis, thrombotic complications and endomyocardial fibrosis. The main causes of EM are hypersensitivity reactions, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome variants, infections and cancer. Clinical presentation can be variable, ranging from asymptomatic forms to life-threatening conditions, to chronic heart failure due to progression to chronic restrictive cardiomyopathy. Marked eosinophilia in peripheral blood, elevated serum eosinophilic cationic protein concentration and multimodality imaging may suggest the etiology of EM, but in most cases an endomyocardial biopsy must be performed to establish a definitive diagnosis. Systemic treatment varies greatly depending on the underlying cause, however the evidence of an eosinophilic infiltrate allows initiation of immunosuppressive therapy, which is the mainstay of treatment in idiopathic and in most forms of EM. Patients with helminthic infection benefit from anti-parasitic therapy, those with myeloid clone often need a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, while anticoagulant therapy should be undertaken in case of possible thrombotic complications.

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

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

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.

Effectiveness of FeNO-guided treatment in adult asthma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway inflammation. Fraction of exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation, but its effectiveness in guiding asthma treatment remains disputed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of the effectiveness of FeNO-guided asthma treatment.

DESIGN

We updated a Cochrane systematic review from 2016. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were performed based on asthma severity, asthma control, allergy/atopy, pregnancy and obesity.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register was searched on 9 May 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of a FeNO-guided treatment versus usual (symptom-guided) treatment in adult asthma patients.

RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs (2,116 patients), all showing high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Five RCTs reported support from a FeNO manufacturer. FeNO-guided treatment probably reduces the number of patients having ≥1 exacerbation (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83; six RCTs; GRADE moderate certainty) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.54 to 0.82; six RCTs; moderate certainty), and may slightly improve Asthma Control Questionnaire score (MD = -0.10; 95%CI -0.18 to -0.02, six RCTs; low certainty), however, this change is unlikely to be clinically important. An effect on severe exacerbations, quality of life, FEV1, treatment dosage and FeNO values could not be demonstrated. There were no indications that effectiveness is different in subgroups of patients, although evidence for subgroup analysis was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

FeNO-guided asthma treatment probably results in fewer exacerbations but may not have clinically important effects on other asthma outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[The need for an integrated approach to rhinitis and asthma]

Introduction

Several evidences support the concept of united airway and its pathophysiological, clinical, and therapeutic implications. The existence of rhinitis can generate greater difficulty in asthma control and higher direct and indirect health care costs, which is not sufficiently recognized by the majority of physicians who often treat them as separate entities.

Objective

To examine witness evidence of the relationship between rhinitis and asthma that contributes to the integrated approach to both pathologies.

Methods

A bibliographic search was carried out in the PubMed (Medline), EBSCO, Scielo, and Google Scholar databases using MeSH and DeCS terms related to the clinical and therapeutic relationship between rhinitis and asthma.

Results

Finally, 46 references describing the impact of rhinitis on the quality of life of patients with asthma and its therapeutic correlate were included.

Conclusions

The treatment of both diseases based on this integrated model is imperative. Both, the endo-phenotypic recognition and the consequent therapeutic approach allow to the concomitant control of asthma and rhinitis and a decrease in their morbidity. Complementary therapeutic measures based on the concept "one airway, one disease" support the good clinical practices necessary to achieve the best therapeutic result.

Benralizumab in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Multicentre Real-Life Experience

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are monoclonal antibodies directed against anti-IL-5 and anti-IL5R, respectively, and their use reduces the exacerbation rate and maintains oral corticosteroid requirements in severe eosinophilic asthma. Previous studies have tested the therapeutic switch between two biologics with excellent results, further demonstrating the heterogeneity of asthmatic disease and the complexity of the therapeutic choice. It remains unclear if such patients may improve following a switch from mepolizumab to benralizumab.

AIMS

Within a multicentre real-life setting, we decided to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a therapeutic switch to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma initially treated with mepolizumab, who experienced sub-optimal responses. The secondary aim was to identify the clinical factors associated with a better response to benralizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated at six Italian specialist centres, who were switched from mepolizumab to benralizumab following a sub-optimal response, defined as a partial or total lack of clinical remission (i.e., frequent severe exacerbations and/or poorly controlled symptoms and/or higher OCS daily use in patients with a poor or moderate response in the global evaluation of treatment effectiveness scale), after at least 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included in the analysis (mean age 56.76 ± 11.97 years, 65% female). At 6 months of treatment with benralizumab, the ACT score was significantly higher than the ACT score with mepolizumab (20.24 ± 3.38 vs. 16.77 ± 3.48, p < 0.0001); the mean number of daily SABA inhalations was significantly lower after 6 months and 12 months of treatment with benralizumab than that after treatment with mepolizumab; OCS intake and the prednisone median dosage at 6 months of treatment with benralizumab were significantly lower than those with mepolizumab. Benralizumab treatment resulted in a marked improvement in asthma control, suppressed blood eosinophil levels and reduction in the number of exacerbations in the subgroup of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and nasal polyposis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma who experience a partial response to mepolizumab could benefit from switching to benralizumab, and even more those who have nasal polyposis.

WITHDRAWN: Prospective direct comparison of biological treatments on severe eosinophilic asthma: Findings from the PRISM study

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

The Role of Eosinophil-Derived Neurotoxin and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in the Pathogenesis of Eosinophilic Asthma

Asthma is a chronic complex pulmonary disease characterized by airway inflammation, remodeling, and hyperresponsiveness. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) are two significant mediators involved in the pathophysiology of asthma. In asthma, VEGF and EDN levels are elevated and correlate with disease severity and airway hyperresponsiveness. Diversity in VEGF polymorphisms results in the variability of responses to glucocorticosteroids and leukotriene antagonist treatment. Targeting VEGF and eosinophils is a promising therapeutic approach for asthma. We identified lichochalcone A, bevacizumab, azithromycin (AZT), vitamin D, diosmetin, epigallocatechin gallate, IGFBP-3, Neovastat (AE-941), endostatin, PEDF, and melatonin as putative add-on drugs in asthma with anti-VEGF properties. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of those drugs. AZT reduces the exacerbation rate and may be considered in adults with persistent symptomatic asthma. However, the long-term effects of AZT on community microbial resistance require further investigation. Vitamin D supplementation may enhance corticosteroid responsiveness. Herein, anti-eosinophil drugs are reviewed. Among them are, e.g., anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab), anti-IL-13 (lebrikizumab and tralokinumab), anti-IL-4 and anti-IL-13 (dupilumab), and anti-IgE (omalizumab) drugs. EDN over peripheral blood eosinophil count is recommended to monitor the asthma control status and to assess the efficacy of anti-IL-5 therapy in asthma.

EGPA Phenotyping: Not Only ANCA, but Also Eosinophils

Background: Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (EGPA) is a small-vessel necrotizing vasculitis. The anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies’ (ANCA) role in defining clinical EGPA phenotypes is well established. Although the role of eosinophils in disease pathogenesis has been clearly demonstrated, the value of blood eosinophil count (BEC) as a biomarker of disease phenotypes is currently uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed EGPA patients referred to our Immunology Clinic. Demographic, laboratory and clinical features were retrieved from clinical records, and a Logistic Regression was fitted to evaluate the predictive power of all baseline clinical and laboratory features to define EGPA phenotypes. Results: 168 patients were recruited. BEC ≤ 1500 cells/mL was predictive of a clinical involvement characterized by asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and lung opacities (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.43; respiratory-limited phenotype); BEC > 3500/mL was predictive of extrapulmonary organ involvement (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.7–7.1; systemic phenotype). BEC was also predictive of peripheral nervous system (PNS) involvement, with a positive trend with increasing BEC (<1500/mL: OR 0.17, 95%CI, 0.06–0.47; >3500/mL: OR 2.8, 95% CI, 1.5–5.28). ANCA positivity was also predictive of extrapulmonary involvement (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.9–11.99). Conclusions: according to BEC and irrespective of the ANCA status, two EGPA phenotypes could be identified, named systemic and respiratory-limited phenotypes, with different organ involvement and possibly different prognoses.

Impact of Anti-IL5 Therapies on Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA) counts for more than 25% of cases of severe asthma. The main factors that impair the quality of life of these patients are high doses of oral corticosteroids, the presence of exacerbations, and reduced lung function. The objective of this study was to evaluate, in real life, the clinical improvement of patients with SUA treated with anti-interleukin 5 (IL5) therapies: mepolizumab and benralizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma in a tertiary hospital receiving biological therapies. Three types of response were evaluated: improvement in lung function, reduction in exacerbations, and decrease in the use of oral corticosteroids. After 12 months of treatment, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, the use of oral corticosteroids, and blood eosinophil levels for both biological therapies (p < 0.001). Lung function improved, achieving a significant improvement in %FEV1 (p < 0.001), as well as asthma control, with a significant increase in asthma control test (ACT) scores in both therapies. The markers associated with the corticosteroid-saving effect were the low doses of oral corticosteroids and absence of exacerbations for mepolizumab, and higher blood eosinophilia, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and reduction in oral corticosteroid cycles for benralizumab. The greatest improvement in lung function in both therapies was linked to lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of other respiratory diseases. The reduction in exacerbations was associated with absence of exacerbations the previous year for mepolizumab and never smokers for benralizumab. The results of this real-life study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of an anti-IL5 biological therapy and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to treatment.

Criteria to evaluate efficacy of biologics in asthma: a Global Asthma Association survey

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no universally accepted criteria to measure the response to biologics available as treatment for severe asthma. This survey aims to establish consensus criteria to use for the evaluation of response to biologics after 4 months of treatment.

METHOD

Using Delphi methodology, a questionnaire including 10 items was validated by 13 international experts in asthma. The electronic survey circulated within the Interasma Scientific Network platform. For each item, five answers were proposed graduated from 'no importance' to 'very high importance' and by a score (A = 2 points; B = 4 points; C = 6 points; D = 8 points; E = 10 points). The final criteria were selected if the median score for the item was ≥7 and > 60% of responses according 'high importance' and 'very high importance'. All selected criteria were validated by the experts.

RESULTS

Four criteria were identified: reduce daily systemic corticosteroids dose by ≥50%; decrease the number of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids by ≥50%; have no/minimal side effects; and obtain asthma control according validated questionnaires. The consensual decision was that ≥3 criteria define a good response to biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific criteria were defined by an international panel of experts and could be used as tool in clinical practice.

Impact of benralizumab on asthma exacerbation-related medical healthcare resource utilization and medical costs: results from the ZEPHYR 2 study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Benralizumab is a biologic add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations, but data on the associated medical utilization are scarce. This retrospective study evaluated the economic value of benralizumab by analyzing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in a large patient population in the US.

METHODS

Insurance claims data (11/2016-6/2020) were analyzed. A pre-post design was used to compare asthma exacerbation rates, medical HRU and medical costs in the 12 months pre vs. post index (day after benralizumab initiation). Patients were aged ≥12 years, with ≥2 records of benralizumab and ≥2 asthma exacerbations pre index, and constituted non-mutually exclusive cohorts: biologic-naïve, biologic-experienced (switched from omalizumab or mepolizumab to benralizumab), or with extended follow-up (18 or 24 months).

RESULTS

In all cohorts (mean age 51-53 years; 67-70% female; biologic-naïve, N = 1,292; biologic-experienced, N = 349; 18-month follow-up, N = 419; 24-month follow-up, N = 156), benralizumab treatment reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation by 53-68% (p < .001). In the biologic-naïve cohort, inpatient admissions decreased by 58%, emergency department visits by 54%, and outpatient visits by 58% post index (all p < .001), with similar reductions in exacerbation-related medical HRU in other cohorts. Exacerbation-related mean total medical costs decreased by 51% in the biologic-naïve cohort ($4691 pre-index, $2289 post-index), with cost differences ranging from 16% to 64% across other cohorts (prior omalizumab: $2686 to $1600; prior mepolizumab: $5990 to $5008; 18-month: $3636 to $1667; 24-month: $4014 to $1449; all p < .001). Medical HRU and cost reductions were durable, decreasing by 64% in year 1 and 66% in year 2 in the 24 month follow-up cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with benralizumab with prior exacerbations experienced reductions in asthma exacerbations and exacerbation-related medical HRU and medical costs regardless of prior biologic use, with the benefits observed for up to 24 months after treatment initiation.

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.

Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma

In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.

Biologics for allergy: therapeutic potential for ocular allergic diseases and adverse effects on the eye

Biologics applying antibodies against IgE, IL-5, IL-5 receptor α, IL-4 receptor α, and IL-13 have dramatically improved recent treatment outcomes in allergic diseases including asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. However, these drugs have not been approved for ocular allergic diseases such as allergic conjunctivitis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and atopic keratoconjunctivitis. Although the putative mechanisms suggest that these drugs should have beneficial effects in patients with ocular allergies and some studies have reported such beneficial effects, various adverse ocular symptoms have also been observed in clinical trials and off-label use studies. Since ocular allergic diseases have distinct pathogeneses, each biologic drug must be examined regarding specific effects on each ocular allergy. For example, IgE-mediated type 1 hypersensitivity plays a critical role in allergic conjunctivitis. By contrast, T cells and eosinophilic and non-IgE-mediated type 2 inflammation play important roles in vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Allergists must fully understand the effects of each drug on the eye. This review outlines both potential therapeutic and adverse effects of various biologics on allergic diseases of the eye.

Use of FeNO to predict anti-IL-5 and IL-5R biologics efficacy in a real-world cohort of adults with severe eosinophilic asthma

INTRODUCTION

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) is associated with multiple exacerbations. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), a biomarker of airway T2 inflammation, is known to be correlated with the risk of exacerbations. While the use of FeNO is well established to predict the therapeutic response to dupilumab (anti-IL-4/IL-13), it remains uncertain for biologics targeting the IL-5 pathway.

METHODS

We conducted an observational, retrospective, monocentric analysis of adults with SEA who started mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) or benralizumab (anti-IL-5R) between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 109 patients. All participants reported uncontrolled asthma with a median of 3 annual exacerbations and a median Asthma Control Test score of 12. They all had an initial blood eosinophilia >300/mm³, with a median at 610/mm³ (IQR 420-856). Patients with a baseline FeNO ≥50 ppb reported more exacerbations in the previous year than those with a FeNO <50 ppb (p = 0.02). After initiation of treatment, change in FeNO was not associated with therapeutic response. However, decrease in the annual number of exacerbations was significantly greater in patients with a baseline FeNO ≥50 ppb than in those with a baseline FeNO <50 ppb (-3.3 ± 2.7 vs -0.9 ± 2.4, respectively; p = 0.01). There was no association between baseline FeNO values and subsequent lung function, asthma control or reduction of oral corticosteroids use.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world cohort, adults with SEA who had a baseline FeNO ≥50 ppb experienced a greater decrease in exacerbations after 12 months of anti-IL-5 or IL-5R biologics than those with a FeNO <50 ppb.

Real-Life Performance of Mepolizumab in T2-High Severe Refractory Asthma with the Overlapping Eosinophilic-Allergic Phenotype

Severe asthma (SA) is categorized into multiple overlapping phenotypes and clinical characteristics driven by complex mechanistic inflammatory pathways. Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody effectively targeting interleukin-5 in severe eosinophilic asthma. However, the eligibility of biologics in coincident SA phenotypes is still unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in real-life patients with the overlapping T2-high SA endotype. This was a phase IV, single-centre observational cohort study including patients with severe refractory T2-high asthma in treatment with mepolizumab. After 12 months of treatment with mepolizumab, significant improvements (p < 0.0001) in asthma control and lung function were recorded. Rates of clinically significant annual asthma exacerbation were also decreased by 71.22% after 52-week therapy with mepolizumab (p < 0.001) associated with a reduction in the mean daily dose of oral corticosteroids. Two patients (3.27%) had to discontinue mepolizumab due to musculoskeletal disorders with no severe safety issues reported. The use of mepolizumab as an add-on therapy in routine clinical practice was safely associated with significant clinical and functional in the overlapping eosinophilic-and-allergic SA phenotype. The current data should support clinical and therapeutic decision-making in this T2-high SA endotype.

Critical evaluation of asthma biomarkers in clinical practice

The advent of personalized medicine has revolutionized the whole approach to the management of asthma, representing the essential basis for future developments. The cornerstones of personalized medicine are the highest precision in diagnosis, individualized prediction of disease evolution, and patient-tailored treatment. To this aim, enormous efforts have been established to discover biomarkers able to predict patients' phenotypes according to clinical, functional, and bio-humoral traits. Biomarkers are objectively measured characteristics used as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or clinical responses to specific therapeutic interventions. The diagnosis of type-2 asthma, prediction of response to type-2 targeted treatments, and evaluation of the risk of exacerbation and lung function impairment have been associated with biomarkers detectable either in peripheral blood or in airway samples. The surrogate nature of serum biomarkers, set up to be less invasive than sputum analysis or bronchial biopsies, has shown several limits concerning their clinical applicability. Routinely used biomarkers, like peripheral eosinophilia, total IgE, or exhaled nitric oxide, result, even when combined, to be not completely satisfactory in segregating different type-2 asthma phenotypes, particularly in the context of severe asthma where the choice among different biologics is compelling. Moreover, the type-2 low fraction of patients is not only an orphan of biological treatments but is at risk of being misdiagnosed due to the low negative predictive value of type-2 high biomarkers. Sputum inflammatory cell analysis, considered the highest specific biomarker in discriminating eosinophilic inflammation in asthma, and therefore elected as the gold standard in clinical trials and research models, demonstrated many limits in clinical applicability. Many factors may influence the measure of these biomarkers, such as corticosteroid intake, comorbidities, and environmental exposures or habits. Not least, biomarkers variability over time is a confounding factor leading to wrong clinical choices. In this narrative review, we try to explore many aspects concerning the role of routinely used biomarkers in asthma, applying a critical view over the "state of the art" and contemporarily offering an overview of the most recent evidence in this field.

Evolving Concept of Severe Asthma: Transition From Diagnosis to Treatable Traits

In recent decades, the concept of severe asthma has evolved from an umbrella term encompassing patients with high-intensity treatment needs to a clinical syndrome with heterogeneous, albeit distinct, pathophysiological processes. Biased and unbiased cluster approaches have been used to identify several clinical phenotypes. In parallel, cellular and molecular approaches allow for the development of biological therapies, especially targeting type 2 (T2) cytokine pathways. Although T2-biologics have significantly improved clinical outcomes for patients with severe asthma in real-world practice, questions on the proper use of biologics remain open. Furthermore, a subset of severe asthma patients remains poorly controlled. The unmet needs require a new approach. The “treatable traits” concept has been suggested to address a diversity of pathophysiological factors in severe asthma and overcome the limitations of existing treatment strategies. With a tailored therapy that targets the treatable traits in individual patients, better personalized medical care and outcomes should be achieved.