Applying personalized medicine to adult severe asthma

Choosing the right biologic treatment for individual patients with severe asthma - lessons learnt from Picasso

Severe asthma represents a true challenge for clinicians from two basic perspectives, i.e.: a rational assessment of the underlying endo/phenotype and the subsequent selection of the best fitted (personalized) and effective treatment. Even though asthma is a heterogeneous disease, in the majority of therapy-compliant patients, it is possible to achieve (almost) complete disease control or even remission through conventional and quite uniform step-based pharmacotherapy, even without phenotyping. However, the absence of deeper assessment of individual patients revealed its handicap to its fullest extent during the first years of the new millennium upon the launch of biological therapeutics for patients with the most severe forms of asthma. The introduction of differentially targeted biologics into clinical practice became a challenge in terms of understanding and recognizing the etiopathogenetic heterogeneity of the asthmatic inflammation, pheno/endotyping, and, consequently, to choose the right biologic for the right patient. The answers to the following three questions should lead to correct identification of the dominant pheno/endotype: Is it really (severe) asthma? Is it eosinophilic asthma? If eosinophilic, is it (predominantly) allergen-driven? The identification of the best achievable and relevant alliance between endotypes and phenotypes ("euphenotypes") should be based not only on the assessment of the actual clinical characteristics and laboratory biomarkers, but more importantly, on the evaluation of their development and changes over time. In the current paper, we present a pragmatic three-step approach to severe asthma diagnosis and management.

Multivariate analysis and data mining help predict asthma exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Work-related asthma has become a highly prevalent occupational lung disorder.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to evaluate occupational exposure as a predictor for asthma exacerbation.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective evaluation of 584 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated for asthma between October 2017 and December 2019 in four clinics from Western Romania. We evaluated the enrolled patients for their asthma control level by employing the Asthma Control Test (ACT < 20 represents uncontrolled asthma), the medical record of asthma exacerbations, occupational exposure, and lung function (i.e. spirometry). Then, we used statistical and data mining methods to explore the most important predictors for asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

We identified essential predictors by calculating the odds ratios (OR) for the exacerbation in a logistic regression model. The average age was 45.42 ± 11.74 years (19-85 years), and 422 (72.26%) participants were females. 42.97% of participants had exacerbations in the past year, and 31.16% had a history of occupational exposure. In a multivariate model analysis adjusted for age and gender, the most important predictors for exacerbation were uncontrolled asthma (OR 4.79, p < .001), occupational exposure (OR 4.65, p < .001), and lung function impairment (FEV1 < 80%) (OR 1.15, p = .011). The ensemble machine learning experiments on combined patient features harnessed by our data mining approach reveal that the best predictor is professional exposure, followed by ACT.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine learning ensemble methods and statistical analysis concordantly indicate that occupational exposure and ACT < 20 are strong predictors for asthma exacerbation.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy

Background

Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.

Methods

Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.

Results

Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).

Conclusion

Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.