Biologicals in childhood severe asthma: the European PERMEABLE survey on the status quo

The new biologic drugs: Which children with asthma should get what?

Novel biologics (targeted antibody therapies) have revolutionized the management of severe childhood asthma. However, it is important that the right biologic is selected for the right patient, and understanding the evidence base for each biologic is crucial. Currently, four biologics (all monoclonal antibodies) are licensed in the UK for the treatment of children with severe asthma - omalizumab (Xolair), mepolizumab (Nucala), and dupilumab (Dupixent) in children aged 6 years and over; and tezepelumab (Tezspire), only in children aged 12 years and over. Tezepelumab is the only licensed biological that may be beneficial in severe asthma without evidence of Type 2 inflammation. All have a good safety profile but varying degrees of clinical efficacy in children, with wide variation in treatment responsiveness between individual patients. When selecting biologics for severe asthma, it is essential to remember the limitations of the current pediatric evidence. At present, there are no results from randomized, head-to-head trials of biologics in severe asthma. TREAT is an ongoing trial comparing omalizumab to mepolizumab and will be one of the first to provide such evidence. We must be especially aware of the dangers of extrapolating data from adults to children, because the pathophysiology and role of biomarkers may differ significantly from adult asthma. Given the current level of knowledge, even after treatment has been initiated, children should be regularly reviewed to determine the efficacy of treatment, side-effect profile and consideration of when treatment with the biologic should be discontinued.

EUFOREUM Berlin 2023: Optimizing care for type 2 inflammatory diseases from clinic to AI: A pediatric focus

The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airways diseases (EUFOREA) organized its bi-annual forum EUFOREUM in Berlin in November 2023. The aim of EUFOREUM 2023 was to highlight pediatric action plans for prevention and optimizing care for type 2 inflammatory conditions starting in childhood, with a focus on early-stage diagnosis, ensuring neither under- nor overdiagnosis, optimal care, and suggestions for improvement of care. EUFOREA is an international not-for-profit organization forming an alliance of all stakeholders dedicated to reducing the prevalence and burden of chronic respiratory diseases through the implementation of optimal patient care via educational, research, and advocacy activities. The inclusive and multidisciplinary approach of EUFOREA was reflected in the keynote lectures and faculty of the virtual EUFOREUM 2023 (www.euforea.eu/euforeum) coming from the pediatric, allergology, pulmonology, ENT, dermatology, primary health care fields and patients around the central theme of type 2 inflammation. As most type 2 inflammatory conditions may start in childhood or adolescence, and most children have type 2 inflammation when suffering from a respiratory or skin disease, the moment has come to raise the bar of ambitions of care, including prevention, remission and disease modification at an early stage. The current report provides a comprehensive overview of key statements by the faculty of the EUFOREUM 2023 and the ambitions of EUFOREA allowing all stakeholders in the respiratory field to be updated and ready to join forces in Europe and beyond.

Severe asthma care trajectories: the French RAMSES cohort

Background

The French RAMSES study is an observational prospective multicentre real-life cohort including severe asthmatic subjects. The objective of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients, in terms of phenotype and asthma care trajectories, between those managed by tertiary referral centres (TRCs) or secondary care centres (SCCs).

Methods

Patients were prospectively recruited and enrolled for a 5-year follow-up. Patients' characteristics were analysed at inclusion and compared between TRCs and SCCs.

Results

52 centres (24 TRCs and 28 SCCs) included 2046 patients: 1502 (73.4%) were included by a TRC and 544 (26.6%) by a SCC. Patients were mainly women (62%), 53±15 years old, 67% with Asthma Control Test <20; at inclusion, 14% received oral corticosteroids (OCS) and 66% biologics. Compared with the SCC group, the TRC group had more frequent comorbidities and lower blood eosinophil counts (262 versus 340 mm-3; p=0.0036). OCS and biologics use did not differ between groups, but patients in the TRC group benefited more frequently from an educational programme (26% versus 18%; p=0.0008) and received more frequently two or more sequential lines of biologics (33% versus 24%; p=0.0105). In-depth investigations were more frequently performed in the TRC group (allergy tests: 74% versus 62%; p<0.0001; exhaled nitric oxide fraction: 56% versus 21%; p<0.0001; induced sputum: 6% versus 3%; p=0.0390).

Conclusions

Phenotypes and care trajectories differed in the RAMSES cohort between SCCs and TRCs, probably related to different levels of asthma severity and differences in medical resources and practices among centres. This highlights the need for standardisation of severe asthma care.

Real-life studies and registries of severe asthma: The advent of digital technology

Severe asthma is a chronic and heterogeneous disease that negatively affects the quality of life of our patients and health care utilization. Given the remaining burden of uncontrolled disease in many of these patients, better understanding of its epidemiology, disease mechanisms, effectiveness of novel therapies such as biologics are still highly needed. Asthma treatment guidelines are largely informed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta analyses of RCTs, however inclusion criteria of many efficacy RCTs of asthma treatments often exclude a high number of patients with asthma in the community. Data from real-life studies and registries of severe asthma can complement efficacy studies by not only providing evidence on how a treatment performs in everyday clinical practice, post marketing safety information, data to support subsequent clinical trial design, but also helping to delineate the natural history of a disease and supporting important translational research endeavors. In the current review, we summarise available national and international collaborative studies and registries, the variables studies and the novel data and insights they provide. The key source of information for most asthma registries are real-life data from patient's electronic health records. Advent of digital technology in collecting data and their analysis is obvious and we draw attention to generation of new knowledge from registries of severe asthma to improve current diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines and asthma control.

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

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

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

The emergence of biologic therapies for the management of asthma has been a revolutionary change in our capacity to manage this disease. Since the launch of omalizumab, several other biologics have been marketed or are close to being marketed, suggesting that a plethora of monoclonal antibodies can be expected in the coming years. This will facilitate the transition to the paradigm of personalized medicine, but on the other hand will decisively further complicate the choice of the most appropriate treatment, in the absence of reliable enough biological markers. For these reasons, along with the relatively short time of use with these treatments, there are recurrently arising questions for which there are not even moderately documented answers, and for which the only solution must be based, with all reservations, on the combination of indirect evidence and expertise. In this paper, we attempt to address such questions, providing relevant commentaries and considering the whole width of the evidence base.

Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There are now many biological therapies to treat severe asthma. To assess which work best for which patient, we need to develop definitions of response. This narrative review aims to capture severe asthma patients' perceptions about non-response and response to biological therapy.

METHODS

Four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Grey literature was searched with the involvement of patient representatives. A thematic approach was used for synthesis. No qualitative studies specifically explore patients' perspectives on response to biological therapy for severe asthma. Three papers and one published asthma patient interview were included. Relevant grey literature was included from online discussion forums, blogs and social media websites.

RESULTS

Adult patients framed positive response to biological therapy in terms of reduced burden of disease and treatment. Both were multifaceted. Some patients experienced reduced benefit from biological therapy over time. There was a group of patients who described a limited response or non-response to biological therapy. This was framed within the context of continuing hospitalisation and oral corticosteroid treatment. The speed of onset of benefit was felt to be important by some.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions of non-response and response need to be patient-centred, yet there is a complete lack of qualitative research focused on this topic. By combining relevant published and grey literature we have provided a description of adult patients' perceptions of response to biological therapy in severe asthma. We now need to understand the views of children and adolescents with severe asthma and their carers, and diverse patient experiences in real-world settings.

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.

Precision Medicine and Childhood Asthma: A Guide for the Unwary

Many thousands of articles relating to asthma appear in medical and scientific journals each year, yet there is still no consensus as to how the condition should be defined. Some argue that the condition does not exist as an entity and that the term should be discarded. The key feature that distinguishes it from other respiratory diseases is that airway smooth muscles, which normally vary little in length, have lost their stable configuration and shorten excessively in response to a wide range of stimuli. The lungs' and airways' limited repertoire of responses results in patients with very different pathologies experiencing very similar symptoms and signs. In the absence of objective verification of airway smooth muscle (ASM) lability, over and underdiagnosis are all too common. Allergic inflammation can exacerbate symptoms but given that worldwide most asthmatics are not atopic, these are two discrete conditions. Comorbidities are common and are often responsible for symptoms attributed to asthma. Common amongst these are a chronic bacterial dysbiosis and dysfunctional breathing. For progress to be made in areas of therapy, diagnosis, monitoring and prevention, it is essential that a diagnosis of asthma is confirmed by objective tests and that all co-morbidities are accurately detailed.

Severe pediatric asthma therapy: Dupilumab

Severe asthma is a rare disease affecting <5% of children with asthma. This group of patients account for about 50% of the costs of healthcare for children with asthma. Nowadays, several biological agents are available for pediatric severe asthma. One of these is dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody against the Interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α-subunit that acts as an antagonist against both IL-4 and IL-13. Dupilumab binds the subunit of the IL-4 receptor, at the level of the subunit shared by the IL-13 receptor, blocking the inflammatory cascade of these two cytokines and the progression of the Th2-inflammatory pathway. The efficacy and safety of dupilumab have been investigated in recently published randomized controlled trials including pediatric patients with asthma. Currently, its use in asthma is approved in adults, adolescents, and children with severe asthma with type 2 inflammation, that are not controlled in spite of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another maintenance drug. Studies are warranted for the evaluation of long-term treatment with dupilumab, including steroid sparing effect and discontinuation of treatment. Further research should also be planned in order to investigate dupilumab potential ability to interfere with the natural history of atopy since early childhood.