Omalizumab effectiveness in patients with severe allergic asthma according to blood eosinophil count: the STELLAIR study

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Airway and Systemic Immunoglobulin Profiling and Immune Response in Adult Asthma

INTRODUCTION

Immunoglobulins play a vital role in host immune response and in the pathogenesis of conditions like asthma. Therapeutic agents such as monoclonal antibodies target specific elements of the asthmatic inflammatory cascade. Decisions to utilize these medications are often based on systemic inflammatory profiling without direct insight into the airway inflammatory profile. We sought to investigate the relationship between immunoglobulin and cytokine profiles in the airway and systemic immune compartments of adult asthmatics.

METHODS

Blood sampling and bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) were performed in 76 well-defined adult asthmatics. Antibody and cytokine profiles were measured in both BAL and serum using ELISA and quantibody arrays.

RESULTS

There was no relationship between BAL and serum levels of IgE. This is of significance in an asthma population. For some analytes, correlation analysis was significant (P < 0.05) indicating representativeness of our cohort and experimental setup in those cases. Nevertheless, the predictive power (r2) of the BAL-to-serum comparisons was mostly low except for TNF-α (r2 = 0.73) when assuming a simple (linear) relationship.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of sample site when investigating the roles of immunoglobulins and cytokines in disease pathogenesis and suggests that both localized and systemic immune responses are at play. The prescription of asthma monoclonal therapy is generally based on systemic evaluation of cytokine and immunoglobulin levels. Our research suggests that this approach may not fully reflect the pathophysiology of the disease and may provide insight into why some patients respond to these targeted therapies while others do not.

Phenotyping of Severe Asthma in the Era of Broad-Acting Anti-Asthma Biologics

Severe asthma is associated with significant morbidity and mortality despite the maximal use of inhaled corticosteroids and additional controller medications, and has a high economic burden. Biologic therapies are recommended for the management of severe, uncontrolled asthma to help to prevent exacerbations and to improve symptoms and health-related quality of life. The effective management of severe asthma requires consideration of clinical heterogeneity that is driven by varying clinical and inflammatory phenotypes, which are reflective of distinct underlying disease mechanisms. Phenotyping patients using a combination of clinical characteristics such as the age of onset or comorbidities and biomarker profiles, including blood eosinophil counts and levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide and serum total immunoglobulin E, is important for the differential diagnosis of asthma. In addition, phenotyping is beneficial for risk assessment, selection of treatment, and monitoring of the treatment response in patients with asthma. This review describes the clinical and inflammatory phenotypes of asthma, provides an overview of biomarkers routinely used in clinical practice and those that have recently been explored for phenotyping, and aims to assess the value of phenotyping in severe asthma management in the current era of biologics.

The Incredible Adventure of Omalizumab

The basis of our current understanding of allergies begins with the discovery of IgE in the mid-1960s. The whole theory of the physiology and pathophysiology of allergic diseases, including rhinitis and asthma, dates from that period. Among the key regions of IgE identified were the FAB (fragment antigen binding) portion that has the ability to capture allergens, and the Cε3 domain, through which IgE binds to its membrane receptor. It was then postulated that blocking IgE at the level of the Cε3 domain would prevent it from binding to its receptor and thus set in motion the allergic cascade. This was the beginning of the development of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody with an anti-IgE effect. In this article, we review the pathophysiology of allergic disease and trace the clinical development of omalizumab. We also review the benefits of omalizumab treatment that are apparently unrelated to allergies, such as its effect on immunity and bronchial remodeling.

Eosinophilic Asthma: Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Horizons

Asthma is a prevalent chronic non-communicable disease, affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. It is characterized by significant airway inflammation, hyperresponsiveness, obstruction, and remodeling. Eosinophilic asthma, a subtype of asthma, involves the accumulation of eosinophils in the airways. These eosinophils release mediators and cytokines, contributing to severe airway inflammation and tissue damage. Emerging evidence suggests that targeting eosinophils could reduce airway remodeling and slow the progression of asthma. To achieve this, it is essential to understand the immunopathology of asthma, identify specific eosinophil-associated biomarkers, and categorize patients more accurately based on the clinical characteristics (phenotypes) and underlying pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). This review delves into the role of eosinophils in exacerbating severe asthma, exploring various phenotypes and endotypes, as well as biomarkers. It also examines the current and emerging biological agents that target eosinophils in eosinophilic asthma. By focusing on these aspects, both researchers and clinicians can advance the development of targeted therapies to combat eosinophilic pathology in severe asthma.

Cytotoxic CD4+ tissue-resident memory T cells are associated with asthma severity

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma represent a distinct endotype with persistent airway inflammation and remodeling that is refractory to corticosteroid treatment. CD4+ TH2 cells play a central role in orchestrating asthma pathogenesis, and biologic therapies targeting their cytokine pathways have had promising outcomes. However, not all patients respond well to such treatment, and their effects are not always durable nor reverse airway remodeling. This observation raises the possibility that other CD4+ T cell subsets and their effector molecules may drive airway inflammation and remodeling.

METHODS

We performed single-cell transcriptome analysis of >50,000 airway CD4+ T cells isolated from bronchoalveolar lavage samples from 30 patients with mild and severe asthma.

FINDINGS

We observed striking heterogeneity in the nature of CD4+ T cells present in asthmatics' airways, with tissue-resident memory T (TRM) cells making a dominant contribution. Notably, in severe asthmatics, a subset of CD4+ TRM cells (CD103-expressing) was significantly increased, comprising nearly 65% of all CD4+ T cells in the airways of male patients with severe asthma when compared to mild asthma (13%). This subset was enriched for transcripts linked to T cell receptor activation (HLA-DRB1, HLA-DPA1) and cytotoxicity (GZMB, GZMA) and, following stimulation, expressed high levels of transcripts encoding for pro-inflammatory non-TH2 cytokines (CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, TNF, LIGHT) that could fuel persistent airway inflammation and remodeling.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate the need to look beyond the traditional T2 model of severe asthma to better understand the heterogeneity of this disease.

FUNDING

This research was funded by the NIH.

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

Advances in pathophysiological understanding and the elucidation of a type 2 inflammatory signature with interleukins 4, 5 and 13 at its center have led to the development of targeted antibody therapies that are now approved for the treatment of severe asthma. In suitable patients, these medications reduce asthma exacerbations and the necessity for oral corticosteroids, improve asthma control, quality of life and lung function. A proportion of patients with severe asthma may even achieve remission under ongoing biologic therapy. Type-2 inflammatory comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe asthma, sharing overlapping pathophysiology and may similarly respond to biologic treatment. Here, we give an overview of the six biologic therapies currently approved for severe asthma and review randomized clinical trials and real-life studies in asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. We also discuss selection of biologics according to licensing criteria, asthma phenotype and biomarkers, monitoring of treatment response and proceedings in case of insufficient outcome under therapy.

Patterns of allergic sensitization in adults with severe asthma: the ATLAS non-interventional study

OBJECTIVES

Severe asthma is heterogeneous, with childhood-onset asthma believed more likely to be allergic, whereas adult-onset asthma is considered typically non-allergic. However, the allergic diagnosis is typically by exclusion: if patients do not react to an allergen panel, which is not standardized and often limited to few allergens, they are considered non-allergic. The overall aim of the ATLAS study was to characterize the sensitization to allergens in severe asthma (independent of phenotype).

METHODS

Single-visit, cross-sectional, non-interventional study in adults with severe asthma. Analyses were conducted for total and specific immunoglobulin E against 53 allergens, overall and in subgroups, including age at asthma onset (<20 [childhood-onset] and >40 years of age).

RESULTS

Among 1010 recruited patients, 28.4% reported childhood-onset asthma and 33.6% onset >40 years of age. After excluding patients receiving omalizumab/anti-IL5 therapy, 27.6% were not sensitized to any tested allergens, whereas 19.1% were sensitized to >10 allergens. All allergens triggered sensitization in some patients. Baseline characteristics in the two onset subgroups were similar; 23.2% with childhood-onset asthma were not sensitized to any allergen, compared to 32.0% with onset >40 years of age.

CONCLUSION

When a broad panel of allergens is used for sensitization testing, as many as three quarters of patients with severe asthma display sensitivity to at least one allergen, with substantial overlaps in all characteristics between the two age-at-onset subgroups. All of the tested allergens triggered a response in at least some patients, emphasizing the importance of including a broad range of allergens in any testing panel.

The phenotypic heterogeneity of obese and nonobese patients with severe asthma and comparison of omalizumab-mepolizumab treatment efficiency in these patients

In obese severe asthmatics, the degree of type 2 inflammation may vary according to their atopic status and past smoking history. In this study, we aimed to analyze the clinical and physiopathological features of obese and nonobese severe asthmatics treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab treatment. In addition we aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric outcomes and total peripheral eosinophilic count (TEC) changes after treatment with these 2 biologic agents in obese and nonobese groups. In this retrospective, cross sectional study, 121 severe asthmatic treated with biologic agents (omalizumab = 88 or mepolizumab = 33) for at least 16 weeks were included. Obese (n: 44) and nonobese severe asthmatics (n: 77) were analyzed according to whether they provided a ≥ 10 pack/years (p/y) or <10 p/y smoking history and were found to be atopic. Obese and nonobese groups were compared in terms of the change in the asthma control test, asthma attacks, TEC, and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) after treatment. In patients with ≥10 p/y smoking history, nonobese group had a significantly higher TEC compared to obese group [median (min-max) 660 cells/μL (200-1500) vs 300 cells/μL (110-770); p: 0.013]. Within the nonobese group, nonatopic patients had a significantly higher TEC compared to atopic patients [median (min-max) 1200 cells/μL (100-2100) vs 310 cells/μL (0-2730); p: 0.021]. Both biologic agents had similar effects on improving asthma control test and in reducing asthma attacks; however, mepolizumab was more effective in suppressing TEC. The improvement in FEV1 in obese group following biologic 2 agents was very similar but in nonobese group, mepolizumab was found to be superior (510 mL vs. 295 mL; p: 0.034). In our real-life study, nonobese severe asthmatics with ≥10 p/y smoking history and those that were nonatopic had higher TEC. Compared to omalizumab, mepolizumab was superior at reducing TEC in all asthmatics and in improving FEV1 in nonobese group.

[Biologics in severe childhood asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma in children remains relatively rare. It is no longer considered as a single disease but rather as a syndrome corresponding to different phenotypes and distinct pathophysiological pathways. Various biomarkers can contribute to phenotyping, essentially specific IgE test results, blood eosinophil counts, the exhaled fraction of NO (FeNO) assay, as well as deep lung biomarkers from induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage or bronchial biopsy.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

In children, the biologics currently approved for severe asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab and dupilumab from the age of 6, and tezepelumab from the age of 12.

PERSPECTIVES

Benralizumab and tezepelumab offer promising perspectives and a pediatric extension could be of interest in future treatment of severe pediatric asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on physiopathological mechanisms, biologics represent a new and promising approach in the treatment of asthma. That said, the long-term efficacy and impact of these treatments on the natural history of the disease require further investigation. It is of paramount importance to take into account the specificities of pediatric asthma and, more particularly, to conduct clinical trials in younger patients.

[Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma]

Severe asthma affects 3%-10% of the world's population, according to estimates by the Global Initiative for ASTHMA (GINA). Allergic asthma is one of the most common phenotypes of severe asthma and it is characterized by allergen-induced type 2 inflammation in which immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a key mediator, making it an important therapeutic target. The introduction of targeted biological therapies or treatments has entered the management for severe asthma in the era of precision medicine, and the goal of treatment is clinical remission of the disease. There is a significant percentage of patients with severe allergic asthma who do not respond to treatments and whose symptoms are not controlled. In this paper, a group of experts in the management of severe allergic asthma reviewed and evaluated the most relevant evidence regarding the pathophysiology and phenotypes of severe allergic asthma, the role of IgE in allergic inflammation, allergen identification, techniques, biomarkers and diagnostic challenges, available treatments and strategies for disease management, with a special focus on biological treatments. From this review, recommendations were developed and validated through a Delphi consensus process with the aim of offering improvements in the management of severe allergic asthma to the professionals involved and identifying the unmet needs in the management of this pathology.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

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.

Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Asthma is the most frequent chronic disease of childhood, affecting up to 20% of children worldwide. The main guidelines on asthma maintenance therapy in pediatrics suggest different approaches and describe different stages of asthma to determine the most appropriate treatment. This project aims to summarize the most recent evidence regarding maintenance therapy for asthma in children and adolescents. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was asked clinical questions regarding the treatment of children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, 10 clinical questions were addressed, and the search strategy included accessing electronic databases and a manual search of gray literature published in the last 25 years. After data extraction and narrative synthesis of results, recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Results showed that the choice of medication depends on the severity of the child's asthma, phenotype, age, preference, and individual factors. In addition to medications, the identification of comorbidities and modifiable factors is crucial to obtaining good control. Asthma in children is heterogeneous, and its evolution varies over time. Since most recommendations for asthma management in childhood are extrapolated from clinical studies performed in adults, more clinical trials specifically designed for young children should be conducted.

Switching to Dupilumab from Other Biologics without a Treatment Interval in Patients with Severe Asthma: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signals. Several large clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with severe asthma. However, few studies have examined a switch to dupilumab from other biologics.

METHODS

This retrospective, multi-center observational study was conducted by the Okayama Respiratory Disease Study Group. Consecutive patients with severe asthma who were switched to dupilumab from other biologics without a treatment interval between May 2019 and September 2021 were enrolled. Patients with a treatment interval of more than twice the standard dosing interval for the previous biologic prior to dupilumab administration were excluded.

RESULTS

The median patient age of the 27 patients enrolled in this study was 57 years (IQR, 45-68 years). Eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS)/chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp (CRSwNP) was confirmed in 23 patients. Previous biologics consisted of omalizumab (n = 3), mepolizumab (n = 3), and benralizumab (n = 21). Dupilumab significantly improved FEV1 (median improvement: +145 mL) and the asthma control test score (median improvement: +2). The overall response rate in patients receiving dupilumab for asthma as determined using the Global Evaluations of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) was 77.8%. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the GETE-improved group vs. the non-GETE-improved group. ECRS/CRSwNP improved in 20 of the 23 patients (87.0%). Overall, 8 of the 27 patients (29.6%) developed transient hypereosinophilia (>1500/μL), but all were asymptomatic and able to continue dupilumab therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab was highly effective for the treatment of severe asthma and ECRS/CRSwNP, even in patients switched from other biologics without a treatment interval.

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.]

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

Cytokine-targeted therapies for asthma and COPD

Asthma affects over 300 million people worldwide and its prevalence is increasing. COPD is the third leading cause of death globally. Asthma and COPD are complex inflammatory diseases of the airways in which impaired host defences lead to increased susceptibility to pathogens, pollutants and allergens. There is a constant interplay between host and the environment. Environmental exposures can alter the lung microbiome and influence the development of sensitisation by disrupting normal immunoregulation. The underlying airway inflammation in severe asthma is heterogeneous, with upregulation of type 2 cytokines in most cases but increased neutrophilic inflammation and activated T-helper 17 mediated immunity in others. COPD may also comprise several different phentoypes that are driven by different molecular mechanisms or endotypes. This disease heterogeneity is affected by comorbidities, treatments and environmental exposures. Recent intervention trials have shed light on the pathways beyond type 2 inflammation that can lead to beneficial outcomes versus potentially deleterious effects. We have made a great deal of progress over the last 10 years in terms of immunology and the pathophysiology of asthma and this has led to the development of novel treatments and major improvements in severe asthma outcomes. In COPD, however, no targeted treatments have demonstrated great improvements. This article reviews the mechanism of action and efficacy of the available biologics in asthma and COPD.

Omalizumab for the treatment of patients with severe allergic asthma with immunoglobulin E levels above >1500 IU/mL

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) plays a critical role in the allergen-initiated inflammatory pathway and thus serves as a viable therapeutic target in allergic or IgE-mediated diseases such as asthma. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE biologic, has been approved in the United States (US, 2003) and in the European Union (EU, 2005) as an add-on therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma and severe allergic asthma (SAA) aged 6 years and older. The dose and frequency of omalizumab are adjusted based on the patient's body weight and baseline IgE levels, as recommended by its dosing tables. Currently, these dosing recommendations are limited to patients with baseline IgE levels of up to 1500 IU/mL in the European Union and 700 IU/mL in the United States. However, many patients with SAA have IgE levels >1500 IU/mL, highlighting an unmet need. This review presents the current evidence on the treatment benefits of omalizumab in patients with IgE levels >1500 IU/mL. The findings from the reviewed studies which included >3000 patients support the efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations, and improving asthma control, lung function, and quality of life in patients with severe asthma having IgE levels beyond the current dosing range. Omalizumab was well-tolerated in these patients, with no new safety signals. In addition, high IgE levels (>1500 IU/mL) are also reported in several comorbidities of asthma (allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis [ABPA], food allergy, and nasal polyposis) and omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in these indications. These data suggest that omalizumab may be considered for administration in SAA patients, with high IgE levels outside the current dosing tables. A detailed assessment of patients with high IgE levels is needed before deciding on the optimal treatment approach. A management algorithm for SAA patients with IgE >1500 IU/mL is proposed in this review and a suggestion to follow the Delphi consensus is advised.

Influence of Genetics on the Response to Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma with an Allergic Phenotype

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma with an allergic phenotype. Its effectiveness could be influenced by clinical variables and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in one or more of the genes involved in the mechanism of action and process of response to omalizumab, and these could be used as predictive biomarkers of response. We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma treated with omalizumab in a tertiary hospital. Satisfactory response after 12 months of treatment was defined as (1) Reduction ≥ 50% of exacerbations or no exacerbations, (2) Improvement of lung function ≥ 10% FEV1, and (3) Reduction ≥ 50% of OCS courses or no OCS. Polymorphisms in the FCER1A (rs2251746, rs2427837), FCER1B (rs1441586, rs573790, rs1054485, rs569108), C3 (rs2230199), FCGR2A (rs1801274), FCGR2B (rs3219018, rs1050501), FCGR3A (rs10127939, rs396991), IL1RL1 (rs1420101, rs17026974, rs1921622), and GATA2 (rs4857855) genes were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using TaqMan probes. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were recruited. After 12 months of treatment, the variables associated with a reduction in exacerbations were the absence of polyposis (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95-19.63), IL1RL1 rs17026974-AG (OR = 19.07; 95% CI = 1.27-547), and IL1RL1 rs17026974-GG (OR = 16.76; 95% CI = 1.22-438.76). Reduction in oral corticosteroids (OCS) was associated with age of starting omalizumab treatment (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and blood eosinophil levels > 300 cells/µL (OR = 2.93; 95% CI = 1.01-9.29). Improved lung function showed a relationship to the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR = 12.16; 95% CI = 2.45-79.49), FCGR2B rs3219018-C (OR = 8.6; 95% CI = 1.12-117.15), GATA2 rs4857855-T (OR = 15.98; 95% CI = 1.52-519.57) and FCGR2A rs1801274-G (OR = 13.75; 95% CI = 2.14-142.68; AG vs. AA and OR = 7.46; 95% CI = 0.94-89.12; GG vs. AA). Meeting one response criterion was related to FCER1A rs2251746-TT (OR = 24; 95% CI = 0.77-804.57), meeting two to age of asthma diagnosis (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88-0.99), and meeting all three to body mass index (BMI) < 25 (OR = 14.23; 95% CI = 3.31-100.77) and C3 rs2230199-C (OR = 3; 95% CI = 1.01-9.92). The results of this study show the possible influence of the polymorphisms studied on the response to omalizumab and the clinical benefit that could be obtained by defining predictive biomarkers of treatment response.

The use of systemic corticosteroids in asthma management in Latin American countries

The stepwise treatment approach recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) includes systemic corticosteroids (SCS) suggested as a final step if asthma is severe and/or difficult to treat. Yet, despite the effectiveness of SCS, they are also associated with potentially irreversible adverse outcomes such as type 2 diabetes, adrenal suppression, and cardiovascular disease. Based on recent data indicating that the risk of developing these conditions can increase after as few as 4 short-term (burst) courses of SCS, even patients with mild asthma who receive SCS occasionally for exacerbations are also at risk of these events. As a result, recent updates by GINA and the Latin American Thoracic Society recommend decreasing SCS use by optimizing administration of non-SCS therapies and/or increasing the use of alternatives, such as biologic agents. Recent and ongoing studies characterizing treatment patterns among patients with asthma have revealed alarming trends suggesting the widespread overuse of SCS around the world. In Latin America, asthma prevalence is approximately 17%, and data suggest that the majority of patients have uncontrolled disease. In this review, we summarize currently available data on asthma treatment patterns in Latin America, which indicate that SCS are prescribed to 20-40% of patients with asthma considered to be well controlled and over 50% of patients with uncontrolled disease. We also offer potential strategies to help reduce SCS use for asthma in everyday clinical practice.

Biological therapy management from the initial selection of biologics to switching between biologics in severe asthma

The aim of this review is to elaborate the management of biologic therapy from initial selection to switching biologics in severe asthma. A nonsystematic review was performed for biological therapy management in severe asthma. Depending on clinical characteristics and biomarkers, selecting the preferred biologic based on super-responder criteria from previous studies may result in adequate clinical efficacy in most patients. On the other hand, no matter how carefully the choice is made, in some patients, it may be necessary to discontinue the drug due to suboptimal clinical response or even no response. This may result in the need to switch to a different biological therapy. How long the biological treatment of patients whose asthma is controlled with biologics will be continued and according to which criteria they will be terminated remains unclear. It has been shown that in patients with a long history of good response to biologics, asthma control may be impaired when biologics are discontinued, while it may persist in others. Therefore, discontinuation of biologics may be a viable strategy in a particular patient group. Clinicians should make the best use of all predictive factors to identify patients who will most benefit from each biologic. Patients who do not meet a predefined response criterion after sufficient time for response evaluation and who are eligible for one or more alternative biological agents should be offered the opportunity to switch to another biologic. There is no consensus on when the biologics used in severe asthma that produce favorable results should be discontinued. In our opinion, treatment should continue for at least five years, as premature termination may potentially deteriorate asthma control.

Can omalizumab be an alternative treatment for non-atopic severe asthma? A real-life experience with omalizumab

Introduction

Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, has largely demonstrated its efficacy in severe allergic asthma. There are limited data about the effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with non-atopic severe persistent asthma. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of omalizumab in patients with non-atopic severe asthma and compare the data obtained with those in patients with allergic severe asthma.

Materials and Methods

This study was an observational, retrospective, tertiary single-center study that assessed and compared the clinical outcome of adult patients with severe asthma (165 atopic and 41 non-atopic) who have been on omalizumab for one year or longer between January 2008 and January 2020. Effectiveness was assessed by considering symptom scores (GINA symptom control score), daily systemic corticosteroids (SCS) dosage, blood eosinophil counts, pulmonary function, and number of severe exacerbations and hospitalizations within the last one year.

Result

Omalizumab exhibited significant improvement in the clinical status of non-atopic asthma patients as measured by GINA symptom score [decreased from 3.77 ± 0.63 to 1.36 ± 1.27 (p<0.001)], the number of emergency room visits for asthma [decreased from 11.25 ± 14.69 to 0.25 ± 0.55 (p<0.001)], and the number of hospitalizations [decreased from 1.17 ± 2.87 to 0.14 ± 0.36 (p= 0.036)]. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in allergic asthma patients. FEV1 improved significantly from 2.08 ± 0.86 to 2.14 ± 0.84 (p= 0.041) and oral corticosteroid doses decreased significantly from 1.67 ± 7.49 to 0.46 ± 2.74 (p= 0.015) in the only atopic group.

Conclusions

Omalizumab, which is a proven and effective treatment option for allergic asthma, may also be an efficacious alternative option in non-atopic severe asthma.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes

(1) Background: Over the past 20 years, monoclonal antibodies have been developed for the treatment of severe asthma, with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to define their safety and efficacy. The growing availability of biologics, which until now have only been available for T2-high asthma, has been further enriched by the arrival of tezepelumab. (2) Methods: This review aims to evaluate the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in RCTs of biologics for severe asthma to understand how they could potentially predict outcomes and how they can help differentiate between available options. (3) Results: The studies reviewed demonstrated that all biologic agents are effective in improving asthma control, especially with regard to reducing exacerbation rates and OCS use. As we have seen, in this regard, there are few data on omalizumab and none yet on tezepelumab. In analysing exacerbations and average doses of OCSs, pivotal studies on benralizumab have enrolled more seriously ill patients. Secondary outcomes, such as improvement in lung function and quality of life, showed better results-especially for dupilumab and tezepelumab. (4) Conclusion: Biologics are all effective, albeit with important differences. What fundamentally guides the choice is the patient's clinical history, the endotype represented by biomarkers (especially blood eosinophils), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis).

Impact of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Most patients with asthma can control their symptoms with a basic standard of medical care and with maintenance and rescue medication. However, between 5% and 10% of asthmatics worldwide do not achieve control of their symptoms and have recurrent exacerbations and respiratory difficulties. The objective of the study was the real-life evaluation of the clinical improvement of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with omalizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma being treated with omalizumab. Three types of response were evaluated: lower use of oral corticosteroids, improvement in lung function, and reduction in exacerbations. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were included, with a mean age of 48 ± 16 years. After 12 months had elapsed, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, use of oral cortico-steroids and doses of inhaled corticosteroids (p < 0.001). Lung function and asthma control improved significantly (p < 0.001; p = 0.004) and eosinophil levels were significantly reduced (p = 0.004). Low scores in the Asthma Control Test were associated with the oral corticosteroid-saving effect; lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were related to improvement in lung function, and prior FEV1 values higher than 80% and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with a reduction in exacerbations. The results of this study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of omalizumab and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to the treatment.

The "real-world" effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma in Slovakia: a subgroup analysis of the eXpeRience study

Introduction

Omalizumab was proven to be effective and safe in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, there is no direct evidence of the benefits of add-on omalizumab in real-life practice in the Slovakian population.

Aim

This subgroup analysis assessed the real-life effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in Slovakian patients with severe allergic asthma enrolled in the eXpeRience registry.

Material and methods

Patients who commenced omalizumab 15 weeks prior to inclusion were assessed for the physicians' global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE), exacerbation rate, asthma symptoms, lung function, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, rescue medication, hospitalizations, and school/work absenteeism at 16 weeks and 12 and 24 months.

Results

Of 204 patients, 159 (77.9%) completed 2-year follow-up. As per GETE, 69.5% of patients treated with omalizumab achieved excellent/good response at 16 (±1) weeks. The proportion of patients with no severe clinically significant asthma exacerbations increased from 17.3% at pre-treatment to 82.4% and 92.0% at months 12 and 24, respectively. Maintenance OCS use was reduced to 17.0% and 15.3% of patients at 12 and 24 months, respectively, compared with 34.7% at baseline (BL). From BL until month 24, asthma control test scores improved from 11.6 to 20.3; rescue medication use/week decreased from 5.5 to 1.6 days; mean total number of days of asthma-related medical healthcare use decreased from 7.7 to 0.3 days and missed workdays decreased from 16.8 to 0.3 days. No new safety signals were observed.

Conclusions

Add-on omalizumab was effective and well-tolerated in Slovakian patients, complementing the results observed in the overall population of eXpeRience.

Specific IgE Response and Omalizumab Responsiveness in Severe Allergic Asthma

Objective

Omalizumab has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens and/or severe pollinosis through inhibition of IgE-dependent allergic response. When considering the "one airway, one disease" concept, sensitization to pollen could predict responsiveness to omalizumab. This study aimed to assess whether the pretreatment specific IgE response could be a predictor of responsiveness to omalizumab in severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 41 adult patients with severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens (27 females; mean age 59 years) who had completed 52-week omalizumab treatment were enrolled. The Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness was performed, and demographic characteristics and the positive ratios of specific IgE responses classified into five subgroups (pollen, dust mite, house dust, mold, and animal dander) were compared between responders and non-responders. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of responsiveness to omalizumab.

Results

Thirty-one patients (76%) were identified as responders. The number of sensitized aeroallergen subgroups and sensitization to pollens were significantly higher in responders than in non-responders (both p<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that sensitization to pollen (OR = 8.41, p = 0.02) was independently associated with the effectiveness of omalizumab.

Conclusion

Pretreatment serum pollen-specific IgE could be a predictor of responsiveness to omalizumab.

Clinical Trial Design Innovations for Precision Medicine in Asthma

Severe asthma is a spectrum disorder with numerous subsets, many of which are defined by clinical history and a general predisposition for T2 inflammation. Most of the approved therapies for severe asthma have required clinical trial designs with population enrichment for exacerbation frequency and/or elevation of blood eosinophils. Moving beyond this framework will require trial designs that increase efficiency for studying nondominant subsets and continue to improve upon biomarker signatures. In addition to reviewing the current literature on biomarker-informed trials for severe asthma, this chapter will also review the advantages of master protocols and adaptive design methods for establishing the efficacy of new interventions in prospectively defined subsets of patients. The incorporation of methods that allow for data collection outside of traditional study visits at academic centers, called remote decentralized trial design, is a growing trend that may increase diversity in study participation and allow for enhanced resiliency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, reaching the goals of precision medicine in asthma will require increased emphasis on effectiveness studies. Recent advances in real-world data utilization from electronic health records are also discussed with a view toward pragmatic trial designs that could also incorporate the evaluation of biomarker signatures.

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.

Role of clinical biomarkers in predicting the effectiveness of omalizumab

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether baseline clinical biomarkers and characteristics can be used to predict the responsiveness of omalizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients with severe asthma who received omalizumab treatment and collected their baseline data and relevant laboratory examination results along with case records of omalizumab treatment responsiveness after 16 weeks. We compared the differences in variables between the group of patients that responded to omalizumab therapy and the non-responder group, and then performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Finally, we analyzed the difference in response rate for subgroups by selecting cut-off values for the variables using Fisher's exact probability method.

RESULTS

This retrospective, single-center observational study enrolled 32 patients with severe asthma who were prescribed daily high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2 receptor agonists on long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists with or without OCS. Data on age, sex, BMI, bronchial thermoplasty, FeNO, serum total IgE, FEV1, blood eosinophils, induced sputum eosinophils, blood basophils, and complications were not significantly different between the responder and non-responder groups. In the univariate and multivariate logistic regression, all the variants were not significant, and we were unable to build a regression model. We used normal high values and the mean or median of variables as cut-off values to create patient subgroups for the variables and found no significant difference in the omalizumab response rate between the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The responsiveness of omalizumab is not associated with pretreatment clinical biomarkers, and these biomarkers should not be used to predict the responsiveness of omalizumab.

Response to Omalizumab as an Add-On Therapy in the Treatment of Allergic Asthma in Adult Chinese Patients-A Retrospective Study

(a) Background: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE humanized monoclonal antibody marketed in China for the conventional treatment of poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of omalizumab, but the data from studies in actual clinical treatment are still relatively limited. (b) Methods: Thirty-two patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab on the basis of ICS-LABA (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonist) were selected. Clinical characteristics before and after treatment were collected to analyze the relationship between changes in serum total IgE levels and peripheral blood EOS (eosinophil) levels, FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), PEF (peak expiratory flow), OCS (oral glucocorticoid) dosage, ATC (asthma control test) score, and the number of acute exacerbations and the treatment response, in order to observe the efficacy of omalizumab in addition to primary therapy, and to investigate whether baseline clinical characteristics such as serum total IgE and EOS levels could predict a treatment response. (c) Results: Using the ACT score as an evaluation, 68.75% of patients benefited from omalizumab treatment at the end of 16 weeks. The response group has a reduction in OCS dosage (p-values of 0.026 and 0.039), a significant reduction in ACT scores (both p < 0.001), and a reduction in the number of acute exacerbations (p = 0.034 and 0.025, respectively) after omalizumab treatment. The binary logistics analysis of factors affecting the effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of allergic asthma were total serum IgE and the presence of comorbidities (p-values of 0.039 and 0.046, respectively). (d) Conclusions: Combining omalizumab with ICS-LABA for 16 weeks significantly improves asthma symptoms in Chinese adults and can be used as an add-on treatment. In addition, high serum IgE levels and the presence of comorbidities were predictors of its therapeutic efficacy.

Real-world effectiveness of omalizumab for severe allergic asthma treatment in Colombia

Background

The allergic phenotype is responsible for more than 50% of severe asthma cases. In a stepwise approach, add-on treatments such as anti-IgE are used for severe allergic asthma (SAA). This study was aimed to describe the real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in adult and pediatric patients with SAA in Colombia.

Methods

This was an observational, non-interventional, retrospective study. Data from patients with SAA that received at least one month of treatment with omalizumab was obtained from medical records at eight sites in Colombia. Time-zero (t − 0) was defined as the date of initiation of omalizumab, and data was gathered for a 12-month period before t − 0 and a 12-month period after t − 0. Clinical outcomes, including exacerbations, were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness of omalizumab was evaluated in terms of the reduction of the risk of exacerbations (annualized rate).

Results

We included 143 patients with SAA. There was a decrease of 72.4% of the annualized rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations during the year after omalizumab (from 1.74 before to 0.48 after) with a substantial reduction of the risk of exacerbations by 56.7% (RR [95% CI] 0.43 [0.30–0.63] p < 0,001).

Conclusion

The use of omalizumab in Colombia as a treatment for SAA notably reduced the risk of clinically significant exacerbations. This study is the first to evaluate omalizumab real-life effectiveness in pediatric and adult patients in the country.

Real-life omalizumab exposure and discontinuation in a large nationwide population-based study of paediatric and adult asthma patients

BACKGROUND

This real-life study aimed to assess omalizumab treatment patterns in adult and paediatric asthma patients, and to describe asthma control and healthcare resource use (HCRU) at omalizumab initiation and discontinuation.

METHODS

The French healthcare database system (Système National des Données de Santé (SNDS)) was used to identify asthma patients aged ≥6 years who initiated omalizumab for at least 16 weeks from 2009 to 2019. We examined omalizumab treatment patterns using dispensation records.

RESULTS

We identified 16 750 adults and 2453 children initiating omalizumab. Median treatment persistence before discontinuation (TSTOP) was 51.2 (95% CI 49.3-53.4) months in adults and 53.7 (95% CI 50.6-56.4) months in children. At 2 years of omalizumab exposure, rate of hospitalisation for asthma decreased by 75% and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) by 30%, in adults and children. Among adults who discontinued omalizumab while asthma was controlled, 70%, 39% and 24% remained controlled and did not resume omalizumab at 1, 2 and 3 years after discontinuation, respectively. These proportions were higher in children (76%, 44% and 33%, respectively). Over 2 years of follow-up after discontinuation, HCRU remained stable in adults and children, notably rate of hospitalisations for asthma (none before TSTOP, 1.3% and 0.6% at 2 years) and use of OCS (in adults and children, respectively: 20.0% and 20.2% before TSTOP, 33.3% and 24.6% at 2 years).

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale study describing omalizumab real-life exposure patterns in adult and paediatric asthma patients in France with >10 years of follow-up. We showed the long-term maintenance of low HCRU in adults and children who discontinued omalizumab while asthma was controlled, notably for OCS use and hospitalisations for asthma.

Identification of Two Eosinophil Subsets in Induced Sputum from Patients with Allergic Asthma According to CD15 and CD66b Expression

Two subsets of eosinophils have been described: resident eosinophils with homeostatic functions (rEOS) in healthy subjects and in patients with nonallergic eosinophilic asthma, and inflammatory eosinophils (iEOS) in blood and lung samples from patients with allergic asthma. We explored if it would be possible to identify different subsets of eosinophils using flow cytometry and the gating strategy applied to induced sputum. We conducted an observational cross-sectional single-center study of 62 patients with persistent allergic asthma. Inflammatory cells from induced sputum samples were counted by light microscopy and flow cytometry, and cytokine levels in the supernatant were determined. Two subsets of eosinophils were defined that we call E1 (CD66b-high and CD15-high) and E2 (CD66b-low and CD15-low). Of the 62 patients, 24 were eosinophilic, 18 mixed, 10 paucigranulocytic, and 10 neutrophilic. E1 predominated over E2 in the eosinophilic and mixed patients (20.86% vs. 6.27% and 14.42% vs. 4.31%, respectively), while E1 and E2 were similar for neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic patients. E1 correlated with IL-5, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and blood eosinophils. While eosinophil subsets have been identified for asthma in blood, we have shown that they can also be identified in induced sputum.

Leukocyte redistribution as immunological biomarker of corticosteroid resistance in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Earlier studies have suggested that the leukocyte redistribution can be considered as an immunological marker of the clinical response to corticosteroids (CS), representing an easy measurable potential biomarker in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determinate the utility of the leukocyte redistribution as a biomarker of disease heterogeneity in patients with severe asthma and as a bioindicator of potential CS resistance.

METHODS

We developed an unbiased clustering approach based on the clinical data and the flow cytometry results of peripheral blood leukocyte phenotypes of 142 patients with severe asthma before and after systemic CS administration.

RESULTS

Based on the differences in the blood count eosinophils, neutrophils and lymphocytes, together with the flow cytometry measurements of basic T cell, B cell and NK cell subpopulations before and after systemic CS administration, we identified two severe asthma clusters, which differed in the cell frequencies, response to CS and atopy status. Patients in cluster 1 had higher frequency of blood eosinophils at baseline, were sensitized to less allergens and had better steroid responsiveness, measured as the pronounced leukocyte redistribution after the administration of systemic CS. Patients in cluster 2 were determined by the higher frequency of B-cells and stronger IgE sensitization status to the multiple allergens. They also displayed higher steroid resistance, as the clinical correlate for the lower leukocyte redistribution after administration of systemic CS.

CONCLUSION

The flow cytometry-based profiling of the basic populations of immune cells in the blood and its analysis before and after systemic corticosteroid administration could improve personalized treatment approaches in patients with severe asthma.

Challenges in severe asthma: Do we need new drugs or new biomarkers?

Severe asthma is a complex, heterogenous airway condition. There have been significant advances in severe asthma management in the past decade using monoclonal antibody therapies that target the inflammatory component of the disease. Patient selection has been paramount for the success of these biologicals, leading to significant interest in biomarkers to guide treatment. Some severe asthmatics remain suboptimally controlled despite trials of biologicals and many of these patients still require chronic systemic corticosteroids. New therapeutics are currently in development to address this unmet need. However, whether these patients could be better treated by using novel biomarkers that inform selection among currently available biologics, and that objectively measure disease control is unclear. In this review, we examine the currently used biomarkers that guide severe asthma management and emerging biomarkers that may improve asthma therapy in the future.

Galectin-10 as a Potential Biomarker for Eosinophilic Diseases

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

[Markers of severity and predictors of response to treatment in severe asthma]

Asthma is a multifactorial disease with complex pathophysiology. Knowledge of its immunopathology and inflammatory mechanisms is progressing and has led to the development over recent years of increasingly targeted therapeutic strategies. The objective of this review is to pinpoint the different predictive markers of asthma severity and therapeutic response. Obesity, nasal polyposis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and intolerance to aspirin have all been considered as clinical markers associated with asthma severity, as have functional markers such as bronchial obstruction, low FEV1, small daily variations in FEV1, and high FeNO. While sinonasal polyposis and allergic comorbidities are associated with better response to omalizumab, nasal polyposis or long-term systemic steroid use are associated with better response to antibodies targeting the IL5 pathway. Elevated total IgE concentrations and eosinophil counts are classic biological markers regularly found in severe asthma. Blood eosinophils are predictive biomarkers of response to anti-IgE, anti-IL5, anti-IL5R and anti-IL4R biotherapies. Dupilumab is particularly effective in a subgroup of patients with marked type 2 inflammation (long-term systemic corticosteroid therapy, eosinophilia≥150/μl or FENO>20 ppb). Chest imaging may help to identify severe patients by seeking out bronchial wall thickening and bronchial dilation. Study of the patient's environment is crucial insofar as exposure to tobacco, dust mites and molds, as well as outdoor and indoor air pollutants (cleaning products), can trigger asthma exacerbation. Wider and more systematic use of markers of severity or response to treatment could foster increasingly targeted and tailored approaches to severe asthma.

Exosome-based strategies for diagnosis and therapy of glioma cancer

Glioblastoma belongs to the most aggressive type of cancer with a low survival rate that is characterized by the ability in forming a highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Intercellular communication are created via exosomes in the tumor microenvironment through the transport of various biomolecules. They are primarily involved in tumor growth, differentiation, metastasis, and chemotherapy or radiation resistance. Recently several studies have highlighted the critical role of tumor-derived exosomes against immune cells. According to the structural and functional properties, exosomes could be essential instruments to gain a better molecular mechanism for tumor understanding. Additionally, they are qualified as diagnostic/prognostic markers and therapeutic tools for specific targeting of invasive tumor cells such as glioblastomas. Due to the strong dependency of exosome features on the original cells and their developmental status, it is essential to review their critical modulating molecules, clinical relevance to glioma, and associated signaling pathways. This review is a non-clinical study, as the possible role of exosomes and exosomal microRNAs in glioma cancer are reported. In addition, their content to overcome cancer resistance and their potential as diagnostic biomarkers are analyzed.

Real-life Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: RELIEF Study

Introduction:

Patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) are at risk of severe exacerbations. Omalizumab is recommended as an add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled SAA, despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β2-agonist combination therapy (standard therapy).

RELIEF was a prospective, open label, multicenter study conducted to assess the real-life effectiveness of omalizumab co-administered with standard therapy in patients with SAA for 24 months.

Methods:

A total of 347 patients aged ≥ 6 years with SAA were enrolled, 285 of whom (8 pediatrics and 277 adolescents and adults) completed this 24-month study. Compared with the 12 months prior to baseline, the mean number of exacerbations was reduced in the overall population at any time interval during the study. Proportion of patients with no exacerbations increased to 77.7% at 24 months from 32.6% at 12 months prior to baseline. A reduction in healthcare resource utilization was also observed. The mean number of specialist visits reduced from baseline (5.8 visits) to 2.4 visits at Month 24.

Results:

The mean asthma control test score was >19 at every time-point during the study. The rate of Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) for asthma response significantly increased at Months 18 and 24 (P <0.05) compared to baseline. Pulmonary function remained relatively stable for the overall study population. There were no new or unexpected safety findings in the study.

Conclusion:

RELIEF study showed that add-on therapy with omalizumab is effective in reducing exacerbations, healthcare utilization, and improving GETE score in patients with SAA uncontrolled by standard therapy.

Severe non-atopic asthma: omalizumab can reduce severe asthma exacerbations

Introduction: Humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) has demonstrated efficacy in severe atopic asthma. However, few studies have assessed its efficacy in non-atopic and even less in T2-low severe asthma. The objective was to determinate the omalizumab response according to atopic status.Methods: This retrospective, real-world study was performed in the Chest Diseases Department of Strasbourg University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2017. The response to omalizumab was assessed in 139 patients 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment and compared to data collected prior to omalizumab initiation.Results: Forty-four patients (31.7%) had severe non-atopic asthma and 95 (68.3%) had a severe atopic asthma. In the non-atopic group, omalizumab significantly reduced the severe exacerbation rate by 44% (95% CI 18-64%, p < 0.05), 43% (CI 95% 20-60%, p < 0.05), and 54% (CI 95% 36-67%, p < 0.05), at 4, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A trend toward improvement in FEV1, asthma control and oral corticosteroid use was also observed. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in atopic asthmatics except a more effective oral corticosteroid sparing in atopic group (p < 0.05). Similar reduction of severe exacerbation rates were observed in T2-low asthma subgroup (non-atopic, non-eosinophilic).Conclusion: Omalizumab was effective in severe asthma, regardless of atopic status.

Allergic Asthma in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Allergic asthma is the most common asthma phenotype and is characterized by IgE sensitization to airborne allergens and subsequent typical asthmatic symptoms after exposure. A form of type 2 (T2) airway inflammation underlies allergic asthma. It usually arises in childhood and is accompanied by multimorbidity presenting with the occurrence of other atopic diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis. Diagnosis of the allergic endotype is based on in vivo (skin prick tests) and/or in vitro (allergen-specific IgE levels, component-resolved diagnosis (CRD)) documentation of allergic sensitization. Biomarkers identifying patients with allergic asthma include total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and serum eosinophil counts. The treatment of allergic asthma is a complex procedure and requires a patient-tailored approach. Besides environmental control involving allergen avoidance measurements and cornerstone pharmacological interventions based on inhaled drugs, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) and biologics are now at the forefront when it comes to personalized management of asthma. The current review aims to shed light on the distinct phenotype of allergic asthma, ranging over its current definition, clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and biomarkers, as well as its treatment options in the era of precision medicine.

Biologics in severe asthma: Outcomes in clinical trials-Similarities and differences

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is a heterogenous disease characterized by multiple phenotypes. Targeted biologic therapies have revolutionarily changed the management of severe asthma by affecting various clinical outcomes, mainly by reducing exacerbations and the use of maintenance corticosteroids, but also by improving lung function and patient quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of different biologics in improving the above outcomes. However, no head-to-head studies exist to compare their efficacy and many patients with severe asthma are eligible for more than one biologic agent. In this review, we present the effect of various biologics in the various outcomes as shown in randomized controlled trials and discuss their similarities and differences.

EXPERT OPINION

Both the initial choice of a biologic as well as the option of switching to another give the clinician an interesting but also difficult decision when choosing a biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma. This decision is mainly based on the individual characteristics of the patient, especially rate of exacerbations and use of systemic corticosteroids, but is also influenced by the presence of comorbidities and lung function impairment. No safety concerns have been raised around the use of these biologics.

Predictive biomarkers for response to omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Predicting omalizumab treatment response has been a challenge and significant aspect for selecting suitable severe allergic asthma patients for omalizumab use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which domains of pretreatment baseline characteristics predict omalizumab treatment response among asthmatic patients.

METHODS

Electronic bases were searched for eligible studies that reported potential biomarkers that could predict omalizumab responsiveness and efficacy. Patients who accepted omalizumab treatment were stratified into responders and non-responders. WMD, OR, and their 95%CI were used to access the differences between those omalizumab receivers. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted for potential heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies evaluating efficacy predictors of omalizumab were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that omalizumab responders had significantly younger age in the adult subgroup, higher pretreatment total serum IgE level, percent predicted FEV₁ and FeNO than that non-responder. We further confirmed that higher blood eosinophil counts and total serum IgE levels are useful markers for selecting asthma patients who may benefit more from omalizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-treatment blood eosinophil counts and total serum IgE level can be a useful efficacy predictor in selecting allergic asthma patients for omalizumab treatment.

Biologic Therapies in Pediatric Asthma

Undeniably, childhood asthma is a multifactorial and heterogeneous chronic condition widespread in children. Its management, especially of the severe form refractory to standard therapy remains challenging. Over the past decades, the development of biologic agents and their subsequent approval has provided an advanced and very promising treatment alternative, eventually directing toward a successful precision medicine approach. The application of currently approved add-on treatments for severe asthma in children, namely omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab have been shown to be effective in terms of asthma control and exacerbation rate. However, to date, information is still lacking regarding its long-term use. As a result, data are frequently extrapolated from adult studies. Thus, the selection of the appropriate biologic agent, the potential predictors of good asthma response, and the long-term outcome in the pediatric population are still to be further investigated. The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the current status of the latest evidence about all licensed monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that have emerged and been applied to the field of asthma management. The innovative future targets are also briefly discussed.

The new era of add-on asthma treatments: where do we stand?

Globally, a small proportion (5-12%) of asthma patients are estimated to have severe disease. However, severe asthma accounts for disproportionately high healthcare resource utilization. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) management committee recommends treating patients with asthma with inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists and, when needed, adding a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist or biologic agent. Five biologics, targeting different effectors in the type 2 inflammatory pathway, are approved for asthma treatment. However, biologics have not been compared against each other or add-on inhaled therapies in head-to-head clinical trials. As a result, their positioning versus that of current and anticipated small-molecule strategies is largely unknown. Furthermore, with the emergence of biomarkers for predicting response to biologics, a more personalized treatment approach-currently lacking with inhaled therapies-may be possible. To gain perspective, we reviewed recent advances in asthma pathophysiology, phenotypes, and biomarkers; the place of biologics in the management and personalized treatment of severe asthma; and the future of biologics and small-molecule drugs. We propose an algorithm for the stepwise treatment of severe asthma based on recommendations in the GINA strategy document that accounts for the broad range of phenotypes targeted by inhaled therapies and the specificity of biologics. In the future, both biologics and small molecules will continue to play key roles in the individualized treatment of severe asthma. However, as targeted therapies, their application will continue to be focused on patients with certain phenotypes who meet the specific criteria for use as identified in pivotal clinical trials.

Current unmet needs and potential solutions to uncontrolled asthma

Despite the availability of effective inhaled therapies, many patients with asthma have poor asthma control. Uncontrolled asthma presents a significant burden on the patient and society, and, for many, remains largely preventable. There are numerous reasons why a patient may remain uncontrolled despite access to therapies, including incorrect inhaler technique, poor adherence to treatment, oversight of triggers and suboptimal medical care. Shared decision-making, good patient-clinician communication, supported self-management, multidisciplinary patient education, new technology and risk stratification may all provide solutions to this major unmet need in asthma. Novel treatments such as biologics could benefit patients' lives, while the investigations into biomarkers, non-Type 2 asthma, treatable traits and disease modification give an exciting glimpse into the future of asthma care.