Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Improving the Quality of Life of Severe Eosinophilic Asthmatic Patients: Our Real-Life Experience

Validity and Responsiveness of EQ-5D in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to synthesize the evidence on the construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and compare them with asthma-specific health-related quality-of-life scales, to guide further research and clinical applications in asthma.

METHODS

We searched key databases from inception to 1 June, 2024 and used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) method to appraise the evidence. The effect size estimates were aggregated using the inverse variance method to evaluate the relative efficiency of EQ-5D measures against the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and/or its corresponding preference-based index, Asthma Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (AQL-5D).

RESULTS

There were 493 tests (construct validity: 428; responsiveness: 65) drawn from 37 selected articles (validation: 7; clinical: 30). Overall, 78.4% and 76.9% of the a priori hypotheses for assessing construct validity (convergent validity: 56.4%; known groups: 88.5%) and responsiveness, respectively, were satisfied. The methodological quality was "very good" or "adequate" in 78.2% of construct validity tests and 92.3% of responsiveness tests. The pooled correlation coefficient between EQ-5D index and AQLQ total scores was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.43-0.59), and between EQ visual analog scale and AQLQ total scores was 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.34-0.69). The Cohen's d ratios for the index, level sum scores, and visual analog scale compared to AQLQ were 0.56 (n = 27), 1.16 (n = 16), and 0.75 (n = 37). The EQ-5D index's Cohen's d ratio compared to AQL-5D was 0.49 (n = 5). The standardized response mean ratios for the index and visual analog scale compared to AQLQ were 0.26 (n = 11) and 0.63 (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-5D demonstrated overall good validity and responsiveness in the adult asthma population. However, a comparison against disease-specific instruments suggested scope for improvement in its psychometric performance for this population.

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

An early Indian experience with benralizumab - A compendium on severe asthma cases: a case series

Background: Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), one of the phenotypes of asthma that is characterized by elevated blood eosinophil counts, is a common cause of uncontrolled asthma. Patients with SEA often experience severe persistent symptoms and have frequent exacerbations despite optimal inhaler therapy. They also have poor lung function and quality of life (QoL). Benralizumab (Fasenra), a monoclonal antibody, has been approved for managing cases of SEA. This series of six cases, the first of its kind from India, aims to add to the real-world evidence of benralizumab in India. Methods: Benralizumab 30 mg (once in four weeks for the first three doses followed by a dose every eight weeks for two years) was administered in six patients with symptoms of cough, breathlessness on exertion, and wheezing, diagnosed with SEA. The following were the endpoints assessed: (i) overlap between high immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophilic asthma; (ii) reduction of exacerbations; (iii) withdrawal of oral corticosteroids; and (iv) improvement in lung function and QoL. Results: In all cases, management with benralizumab resulted in optimal clinical and functional improvement, a decline in systemic steroid use, and improved QoL. Conclusions: The cases presented here are the first of their kind in the Indian asthmatic population with all SEA patients demonstrating significant improvement in symptoms with the use of benralizumab.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Switching Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma

Currently, three classes of monoclonal antibodies targeting type 2 inflammation pathways are available in Italy for the treatment of severe asthma: anti-IgE (Omalizumab), anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα (Mepolizumab and Benralizumab), and anti-IL-4Rα (Dupilumab). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life studies have been conducted to define their efficacy and identify baseline patients' characteristics potentially predictive of favorable outcomes. Switching to another monoclonal antibody is recommended in case of a lack of benefits. The aim of this work is to review the current knowledge on the impact of switching biological therapies in severe asthma as well as on predictors of treatment response or failure. Almost all of the information about switching from a previous monoclonal antibody to another comes from a real-life setting. In the available studies, the most frequent initial biologic was Omalizumab and patients who were switched because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate despite OCS dependence. The choice of the most suitable treatment may be guided by the patient's clinical history, biomarkers of endotype (mainly blood eosinophils and FeNO), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis). Due to overlapping eligibility, larger investigations characterizing the clinical profile of patients benefiting from switching to different monoclonal antibodies are needed.

Long-term effectiveness of benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma patients treated for 96-weeks: data from the ANANKE study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of benralizumab has been broadly demonstrated in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), but only few real-life studies evaluated its long-term effects. Here we present novel data from the ANANKE study in which a large cohort of SEA patients was treated for up to 96 weeks.

METHODS

ANANKE (NCT04272463) is an observational retrospective Italian study investigating the key characteristics of SEA patients (collected during the 12 months prior to benralizumab initiation) and the clinical outcomes during benralizumab treatment (annual exacerbation rate [AER], lung function, asthma control, OCS use, healthcare resource utilization). A post hoc analysis was also conducted in groups of patients based on history of previous biologic therapy (bio-experienced versus naïve patients). Analyses were descriptive only.

RESULTS

Before benralizumab initiation, evaluable SEA patients (N = 162, 61.1% females, mean age 56.0 ± 12.7) showed a median blood eosinophil count (BEC) of 600 cells/mm³ (IQR: 430-890). Patients experienced frequent exacerbations (annualized exacerbation rate [AER]: 4.10, severe AER: 0.98), with impaired lung function and poor asthma control (median ACT score: 14) despite 25.3% reported oral corticosteroid (OCS) use. Nasal polyposis was present in 53.1% patients; 47.5% patients were atopic. After 96 weeks since the start of benralizumab, nearly 90% patients were still on treatment; benralizumab dramatically decreased exacerbations (AER: - 94.9%; severe AER: - 96.9%), improved respiratory parameters (median increase in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume [pre-BD FEV1]: + 400 mL) and asthma control (median ACT score: 23) while eliminating OCS in 60% patients. Importantly, benralizumab effects were either maintained or progressively improved over time, accompanied by a nearly complete depletion of BEC. Benralizumab reduced AER both in naïve (any AER: - 95.9%; severe AER: - 97.5%) and bio-experienced patients (any AER: - 92.4%; severe AER: - 94.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Profound and sustained improvements in all asthma outcomes were observed with benralizumab. The correct identification of patients' eosinophilic-driven asthma phenotype was essential to ensure the achievement of such remarkable results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04272463.

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

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

Real-World clinical outcomes of asthma patients switched from reslizumab to mepolizumab or benralizumab

Introduction

Approximately 3%-10% of asthma patients will remain uncontrolled despite maximum, optimal conventional therapy. Treatment of severe refractory asthma often involves the use of targeted biological therapy. Randomised controlled trials have shown improvements in clinical parameters with these treatments but real-world data is lacking.

Methods

The clinical parameters, frequency of exacerbations, number of hospital admissions, asthma control questionnaire score (ACQ), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose of twenty asthma patients switched from reslizumab to benralizumab or mepolizumab at 1 year prior and 6 months after switching were compared, with adjustments for time.

Results

The mean frequency of exacerbations (0.35 v 0.3) and the mean ACQ were essentially unchanged (1.6 v 1.5) following the switch. The number of hospital admissions was one in the 6 months post switch compared to one in 1-year pre switch. 25% of patients were on maintenance OCS before and after switching but one patient required an increased dose post switch resulting in an increase in the mean maintenance OCS dose (1.6 mg to 2.4 mg). The mean FEV₁ was unchanged (80% v 77.9%) six months post switching. Regarding asthma control (n = 19), 47.4% were controlled pre and post switch (ACQ < 1.5), 36.8% remained uncontrolled despite switching, 10.5% improved control while 5.3% disimproved.

Conclusion

We present real-world clinical outcomes of asthma patients switched from reslizumab to either benralizumab or mepolizumab without a loss of clinical effectiveness in the majority.

Clinical Features and Efficacy of Benralizumab in Patients with Blood Eosinophil Count Between 300 and 450 Cells/mm3: A Post Hoc Analysis from the ANANKE Study

PURPOSE

Benralizumab effectively reduces severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) exacerbations in patients with a wide range of baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). Patients included in real-world studies are often characterized by high mean/median BEC, while patients with BEC close to 300 cells/mm3 are poorly represented. This post hoc analysis from the Italian study ANANKE aims to define the clinical features and corroborate the efficacy of benralizumab in real world in the BEC 300-450 cells/mm3 subset of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post hoc analysis of the Italian, multicenter, observational, retrospective real-life study ANANKE (NCT04272463). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment and presented for a BEC 300-450 cells/mm3 subgroup of patients. Change over time of BEC, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use at 16, 24 and 48 weeks after benralizumab introduction were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were analyzed, 34 of whom with a BEC of 300-450 cells/mm3. This subgroup was more likely to be female (64.7%), with lower rates of severe exacerbations at baseline when compared to the total population (0.69 vs 1.01). After 48 weeks of benralizumab treatment, the BEC 300-450 subset showed similar reductions in AER (-94.8% vs -92.2%) and OCS use (median dose reduction of 100% in both groups), as well as improvement in ACT score (median scores 22.5 vs 22) and lung function (pre-BD FEV1: +200 mL vs +300 mL) when compared to the total population. No discontinuations for safety reasons were registered.

CONCLUSION

At baseline, apart from lower severe exacerbation rate, the BEC 300-450 cells/mm3 subset of patients is comparable to the total population prescribed with benralizumab. In this real-life study, benralizumab is as effective in BEC 300-450 patients as in the total population.

Resolution of daytime and night-time respiratory symptoms but persistent sleep apnea in severe asthma with the add-on of benralizumab

Introduction

The relationship between asthma and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a widely debated topic in the scientific literature with the controversy surrounding the bi-directional nature of the correlation.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 59-year-old male being affected by severe allergic eosinophilic asthma and severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] 32 ev·hr^-1). Due to a clinical worsening of asthma (aggravation of dyspnea, chest constriction and night-time respiratory symptoms), despite the optimal therapy for asthma and recurrent administration of systemic corticosteroids, we have added-on treatment with benralizumab (monoclonal anti-interleukin 5 antibody). After eight months, the patient reported an improvement in asthma control (asthma control test [ACT]= 25 points), in pulmonary function and a good control of nocturnal symptoms of both diseases (i.e., wheezing, snoring, etc.). Then, the follow up polysomnography (PSG) was performed resulting in a high reduction of OSA severity (~18% AHI) even if obstructive events persisted and almost resolution of nocturnal hypoxemia. So, a trial with positive airway pressure (PAP) was proposed to the patient, who declined.

Conclusions

In consideration of our experience, we suggest that the nocturnal profile of patients with severe asthma should be always studied by a sleep investigation to prevent the negative effects of interaction with OSA. However, further studies on larger samples are needed to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of benralizumab on obstructive events during sleep.

Benralizumab in Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma With and Without Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: An ANANKE Study post-hoc Analysis

Background

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) in the presence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) indicates the presence of a more extensive eosinophilic inflammation. Post-hoc analyses from a pivotal clinical trial have demonstrated the enhanced efficacy of benralizumab on asthma outcomes in patients with CRSwNP as a comorbidity.

Methods

This is a post-hoc analysis from the Italian multi-center observational retrospective ANANKE study. Patients were divided into two groups based on self-reported CRSwNP. Baseline clinical and laboratory features in the 12 months prior to benralizumab prescription were collected. Data of change over time of blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbations rates (AER), asthma control, lung function, oral corticosteroids (OCS) use, and benralizumab discontinuation were collected during the observation period.

Results

At baseline, the 110 patients with CRSwNP were less frequently female (50.9% vs 74.2%) and obese (9.1% vs. 22.6%) with higher eosinophils (605 vs. 500 cells/mm³) and OCS use when compared to patients without CRSwNP. Similar reductions of AER were seen (-95.8% vs. −91.5% for any exacerbation and −99.1% vs. −92.2% for severe exacerbations in patients with and without CRSwNP, respectively). During benralizumab treatment, comorbid SEA+CRSwNP was associated with a lower risk of any exacerbation (p = 0.0017) and severe exacerbations (p = 0.025). After a mean ± SD exposure of 10.3 ± 5.0 months, half of the SEA+CRSwNP patients eliminated OCS use. No discontinuation for safety reasons was recorded.

Conclusions

This study helped to confirm the baseline clinical features that distinguish patients with and without CRSwNP being prescribed benralizumab. Numerically enhanced OCS reduction and lower exacerbation risk were observed in patients with SEA and comorbid CRSwNP treated with benralizumab.

Physical activity endpoints in trials of chronic respiratory diseases: summary of evidence

Background

Physical activity contributes to improving respiratory symptoms. However, validated end-points are few, and there is limited consensus about what is a clinically meaningful improvement for patients. This review summarises the evidence to date on the range of physical activity end-points used in COPD, asthma and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) whilst evaluating their appropriateness as end-points in trials and their relation to patients’ everyday life.

Methods

Trials reporting physical activity end-points were collected using Citeline's database Trialtrove; this was supplemented by searches in PubMed.

Results

The daily-patient-reported outcome (PRO)active and clinical visit-PROactive physical activity composite end-points appeared superior at capturing the full experience of physical activity in patients with COPD and were responsive to bronchodilator intervention. Time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity is a recently validated end-point for IPF that correlates with exercise capacity and quality of life. Step count appears the best available physical activity measure for asthma, which consistently declines with worse disease status. However, evidence suggests a time lag before significant improvement in step count is seen which may reflect the impact of human behaviour on physical activity.

Conclusions

Physical activity represents a challenging domain to accurately measure. This is the first review evaluating physical activity measures used specifically within the respiratory field. Whilst physical activity can be effectively captured using PROactive in patients with COPD, this review highlights the unmet need for novel patient-focused end-points in asthma and IPF which would offer opportunities to develop efficacious medicines with impact on patients’ therapeutic care and quality of life.

Physical activity (PA) is a challenging domain to measure accurately. Patient-centric measures have been developed for the COPD population; however, the appropriateness of PA measures used in asthma and IPF populations remains sporadic and controversial.https://bit.ly/3HmmaGp

Clinical Characteristics of Patients and Factors Associated with Switching Biologics in Asthma

Purpose

Biologics have been used increasingly for the treatment of severe asthma. However, established guidelines for the selection, switching, or discontinuation of biologics do not exist. We aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of patients with asthma who required switching biologics and the factors associated with switching biologics.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective study of 42 patients with severe asthma treated with biologics at the Hokkaido University Hospital between 23^rd June 2016 and 30^th April 2021, when two biologics were available in Japan. We compared the characteristics of subjects who continued and switched biologics. The time to switch the biologics was assessed by type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, pulmonary function indices, and the presence of comorbidities, including the Japanese Epidemiological Survey of Refractory Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis (JESREC) score and aspirin exacerbated respiratory diseases (AERD), using the Kaplan–Meier method and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

Eight and five patients were treated by mepolizumab and benralizumab at baseline, respectively among the 31% (13/42) who switched the biologics. Subjects who required switching biologics were characterized by high blood eosinophil counts, younger age, JESREC scores of 11 points or higher, and AERD. The time taken to switch biologics was significantly shorter in the subgroups with high JESREC scores (≥11) or AERD, compared with their counterparts with low JESREC scores or without AERD (both, P < 0.05). JESREC scores of ≥11, but not the presence of AERD, were associated with time to switch biologics.

Conclusion

The presence of eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis based on JESREC scores of ≥11 and younger age were factors associated with switching biologics in asthma.

Oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) have long been a mainstay of treatment for asthma exacerbations and chronic severe asthma. However, it is increasingly recognized that both long-term and short-term OCS use are directly associated with a wide range of serious adverse effects, and as such OCS-sparing treatment alternatives are now widely recommended for patients with severe asthma. While several international guidelines recommend these treatments, guidance on OCS tapering, and which patients are most likely to tolerate OCS reduction and/or discontinuation, is still lacking. Several biologics have demonstrated efficacy in patients with OCS-dependent asthma. One OCS-sparing treatment is the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. In addition to improved exacerbation rates, asthma control, quality of life, and lung function among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, mepolizumab also has an OCS-sparing effect, which has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies. Both physicians and patients express concerns about the adverse effects of OCS, and additional data from the randomized, controlled SIRIUS trial (NCT01691508) highlight the high level of concern among patients regarding OCS-related burden. In this article, we discuss current guidance on OCS-sparing strategies for patients with severe asthma, provide a summary of the available evidence of the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab, and highlight patient and physician perspectives on the use of OCS and OCS-sparing treatments in severe asthma.

Oral Corticosteroids Dependence and Biologic Drugs in Severe Asthma: Myths or Facts? A Systematic Review of Real-World Evidence

Airway inflammation represents an important characteristic in asthma, modulating airflow limitation and symptom control, and triggering the risk of asthma exacerbation. Thus, although corticosteroids represent the cornerstone for the treatment of asthma, severe patients may be dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Fortunately, the current humanised monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and reslizumab have been proven to induce an OCS-sparing effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus overcoming the problem of OCS dependence in severe asthma. Nevertheless, a large discrepancy has been recognized between selected patients enrolled in RCTs and non-selected asthmatic populations in real-world settings. It is not possible to exclude that the OCS-sparing effect of mAbs resulting from the RCTs could be different than the real effect resulting in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and correlation analysis to assess whether mAbs are effective in eliciting an OCS-sparing effect and overcoming the OCS dependence in severe asthmatic patients in real-world settings. Overall, real-world studies support the evidence that OCS dependence is a real condition that, however, can be found only in a small number of really severe asthmatic patients. In most patients, the dependence on OCS can be related to modifying factors that, when adequately modulated, may lead to a significant reduction or suspension of OCS maintenance. Conversely, in severe asthmatics in whom OCS resistance is proved by a high daily dose intake, mAbs allow reversion of the OCS dependence, leading to the suspension of OCS therapy in most patients or >50% reduction in the daily OCS dose.