Expert meeting report: towards a joint European roadmap to address the unmet needs and priorities of paediatric asthma patients on biologic therapy

Factors influencing the initiation of biologic therapy in children with severe asthma: Results of the pediatric asthma noninvasive diagnostic approaches (PANDA) study

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Despite the availability of biologics for severe pediatric asthma, real-life studies reporting on drivers behind initiating biologics and their alignment with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations are lacking.

METHODS

We performed analysis within the pediatric asthma noninvasive diagnostic approaches study, a prospective cohort of 6- to 17-year-old children with severe asthma. Information was collected on demographic factors, symptom control, treatment, comorbidities, and diagnostic tests from medical records and questionnaires. We divided patients into "starters" or "nonstarters" based on the clinical decision to initiate biologics and performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify drivers behind initiating therapy. Additionally, we assessed patient suitability for biologics according to key factors in the GINA recommendations: Type 2 inflammation, frequency of exacerbations, and optimization of treatment adherence.

RESULTS

In total, 72 children (mean age 11.5 ± 3.0 years, 65.3% male) were included (13 starters). Initiation of biologics was associated with a higher GINA treatment step (adjusted odds ratio's [aOR] = 5.0, 95%CI 1.33-18.76), steroid toxicity (aOR = 21.1, 95%CI 3.73-119.91), frequency of exacerbations (aOR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.10-2.39), improved therapy adherence (aOR = 1.7, 95%CI 1.10-2.46), Caucasian ethnicity (aOR = 0.20, 95%CI 0.05-0.80), ≥1 allergic sensitization (aOR = 0.06, 95%CI 0.004-0.97), and allergic rhinitis (aOR = 0.13, 95%CI 0.03-0.65). Furthermore, steroid toxicity was identified as an important factor for deviation from the current recommendations on biologic prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified multiple drivers and inhibitors for initiating biologics, and showed the clinical need for biologics in severe pediatric asthmatics suffering from steroid toxicity. These findings may help refine asthma management guidelines.

Eosinophils-from cradle to grave: An EAACI task force paper on new molecular insights and clinical functions of eosinophils and the clinical effects of targeted eosinophil depletion

Over the past years, eosinophils have become a focus of scientific interest, especially in the context of their recently uncovered functions (e.g. antiviral, anti-inflammatory, regulatory). These versatile cells display both beneficial and detrimental activities under various physiological and pathological conditions. Eosinophils are involved in the pathogenesis of many diseases which can be classified into primary (clonal) and secondary (reactive) disorders and idiopathic (hyper)eosinophilic syndromes. Depending on the biological specimen, the eosinophil count in different body compartments may serve as a biomarker reflecting the underlying pathophysiology and/or activity of distinct diseases and as a therapy-driving (predictive) and monitoring tool. Personalized selection of an appropriate therapeutic strategy directly or indirectly targeting the increased number and/or activity of eosinophils should be based on the understanding of eosinophil homeostasis including their interactions with other immune and non-immune cells within different body compartments. Hence, restoring as well as maintaining homeostasis within an individual's eosinophil pool is a goal of both specific and non-specific eosinophil-targeting therapies. Despite the overall favourable safety profile of the currently available anti-eosinophil biologics, the effect of eosinophil depletion should be monitored from the perspective of possible unwanted consequences.

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.

Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review

Background

Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma.

Methods

We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken.

Results

13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards.

Conclusions

This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.

Asthma in paediatric intensive care in England residents: observational study

Despite high prevalence of asthma in children in the UK, there were no prior report on asthma admissions in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We investigated the epidemiology and healthcare resource utilisation in children with asthma presenting to PICUs in England. PICANet, a UK national PICU database, was queried for asthma as the primary reason for admission, of children resident in England from April 2006 until March 2013. There were 2195 admissions to PICU for a median stay of 1.4 days. 59% were males and 51% aged 0–4 years. The fourth and fifth most deprived quintiles represented 61% (1329) admissions and 73% (11) of the 15 deaths. Deaths were most frequent in 10–14 years age (n = 11, 73%), with no deaths in less than 5 years age. 38% of admissions (828/2193) received invasive ventilation, which was more frequent with increasing deprivation (13% (108/828) in least deprived to 31% (260/828) in most deprived) and with decreasing age (0–4-year-olds: 49%, 409/828). This first multi-centre PICU study in England found that children from more deprived neighbourhoods represented the majority of asthma admissions, invasive ventilation and deaths in PICU. Children experiencing socioeconomic deprivation could benefit from enhanced asthma support in the community.