Biologics in Asthma: A Molecular Perspective to Precision Medicine

Eosinophil-mucus interplay in severe asthma: Implications for treatment with biologicals

Airway mucus is a hydrogel with unique biophysical properties due to its primary water composition and a small proportion of large anionic glycoproteins or mucins. The predominant mucins in human mucus, MUC5AC and MUC5B, are secreted by specialized cells within the airway epithelium both in normal conditions and in response to various stimuli. Their relative proportions are correlated with specific inflammatory responses and disease mechanisms. The dysregulation of mucin expression is implicated in numerous respiratory diseases, including asthma, COPD, and cystic fibrosis, where the pathogenic role of mucus has been extensively described yet often overlooked. In airway diseases, excessive mucus production or impaired mucus clearance leads to mucus plugging, with secondary airway occlusion that contribute to airflow obstruction, asthma severity and poor control. Eosinophils and Charcot Leyden crystals in sputum contribute to the mucus burden and tenacity. Mucin may also contribute to eosinophil survival. Other mechanisms, including eosinophil-independent IL-13 release, mast-cell activation and non-type-2 (T2) cytokines, are also likely to participate in mucus pathobiology. An accurate assessment of mucus and its clinical and functional consequences require a thorough approach that includes evaluation of cellular predominance in sputum, airway cytokines and other inflammatory markers, mucus characteristics and composition and structural and functional impact measured by advanced lung imaging. This review, illustrated with clinical scenarios, provides an overview of current methods to assess mucus and its relevance to the choice of biologics to treat patients with severe asthma.

Ratio of plasma IL-13/TNF- ∝ and CXCL10/CCL17 predicts mepolizumab and omalizumab response in asthma better than eosinophil count or immunoglobulin E level

To date, most studies to identify biomarkers associated with response to the anti-interleukin 5 agent, mepolizumab, and to the anti-immunoglobulin E agent, omalizumab have focused on clinically available biomarkers, such as the peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and total immunoglobulin E (IgE). However, these biomarkers often have low predictive accuracy, with many patients with eosinophilic or allergic asthma failing to demonstrate clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab respectively. In this study, we evaluated the association of baseline pre-biologic plasma levels of 26 cytokines and chemokines, including T-helper 1 (Th1)-, Th2-, Th17-related cytokines, and their ratios with subsequent clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab. We defined clinical response as a reduction in the baseline annual exacerbation rate by half or more over the one-year period following initiation of the biologic. Baseline levels of plasma IL-13 were differentially elevated in responders versus non-responders to mepolizumab and plasma CXCL10 levels were differentially elevated in responders to omalizumab. The ratio of IL-13/TNF-α had the best sensitivity and specificity in predicting response to mepolizumab and CXCL10/CCL17 to omalizumab, and these performed better as predictive biomarkers of response than BEC and IgE. Cytokines and chemokines associated with airway eosinophilia, allergic inflammation, or Th2 inflammation, such as IL-13 and CXCL10, may be better predictors of clinical response to mepolizumab and omalizumab, than IL-5 or IgE, the targets of mepolizumab and omalizumab.

A Roadmap for Using Causal Inference and Machine Learning to Personalize Asthma Medication Selection

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is a mainstay treatment for controlling asthma and preventing exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. Many types of ICS drugs are used, either alone or in combination with other controller medications. Despite the widespread use of ICSs, asthma control remains suboptimal in many people with asthma. Suboptimal control leads to recurrent exacerbations, causes frequent ER visits and inpatient stays, and is due to multiple factors. One such factor is the inappropriate ICS choice for the patient. While many interventions targeting other factors exist, less attention is given to inappropriate ICS choice. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with variable underlying inflammations and biomarkers. Up to 50% of people with asthma exhibit some degree of resistance or insensitivity to certain ICSs due to genetic variations in ICS metabolizing enzymes, leading to variable responses to ICSs. Yet, ICS choice, especially in the primary care setting, is often not tailored to the patient's characteristics. Instead, ICS choice is largely by trial and error and often dictated by insurance reimbursement, organizational prescribing policies, or cost, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach with many patients not achieving optimal control. There is a pressing need for a decision support tool that can predict an effective ICS at the point of care and guide providers to select the ICS that will most likely and quickly ease patient symptoms and improve asthma control. To date, no such tool exists. Predicting which patient will respond well to which ICS is the first step toward developing such a tool. However, no study has predicted ICS response, forming a gap. While the biologic heterogeneity of asthma is vast, few, if any, biomarkers and genotypes can be used to systematically profile all patients with asthma and predict ICS response. As endotyping or genotyping all patients is infeasible, readily available electronic health record data collected during clinical care offer a low-cost, reliable, and more holistic way to profile all patients. In this paper, we point out the need for developing a decision support tool to guide ICS selection and the gap in fulfilling the need. Then we outline an approach to close this gap via creating a machine learning model and applying causal inference to predict a patient's ICS response in the next year based on the patient's characteristics. The model uses electronic health record data to characterize all patients and extract patterns that could mirror endotype or genotype. This paper supplies a roadmap for future research, with the eventual goal of shifting asthma care from one-size-fits-all to personalized care, improve outcomes, and save health care resources.

Immune Cell-Mediated Autoimmune Responses in Severe Asthma

Severe asthma (SA) has heterogeneous inflammatory phenotypes characterized by persistent airway inflammation (eosinophilic and/or neutrophilic inflammation) and remodeling. Various immune cells (eosinophils, neutrophils, and macrophages) become more activated and release inflammatory mediators and extracellular traps, damaging the protective barrier of airway epithelial cells and further activating other immune and structural cells. These cells play a role in autoimmune responses in asthmatic airways, where the adaptive immune system generates autoantibodies, inducing immunoglobulin G-dependent airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested that adult asthmatics had high titers of autoantibodies associated with asthma severity, although pathogenic factors or diagnostic criteria are not well-defined. This challenge is further compounded by asthmatics with the autoimmune responses showing therapy insensitivity or failure to current pharmacological and biological treatment. This review updates emerging mechanisms of autoimmune responses in asthmatic airways and provides insights into their roles, proposing potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for SA.

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.

Decoding treatment efficacy: uncovering response and failure dynamics to biologics in asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a global health problem, with alarming prevalence and mortality rates. Biologic therapies, particularly monoclonal antibodies such as omalizumab, have emerged as promising alternatives, targeting specific immune pathways. This article assesses the efficacy of these biologics in asthma management and attempts to reveal factors associated with their response and failure dynamics.

AREA COVERED

This article explores the efficacy of biologics in asthma, biomarkers, and the relationship between asthma phenotypes (including eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic (neutrophilic) types) and biologic treatments; particularly their effectiveness for each subtype.

EXPERT OPINION

Personalized asthma management that incorporates molecular insights as well as individual variations is of outmost necessity. An emphasis is put on immunological profiling, understanding comorbidities and considering individual patient factors when managing asthma. Cutting-edge phenotyping tools including omic technologies play a crucial role in improving asthma management precision. Variability in patient responses to biologic treatments such as non-responders, partial responders and super responders poses a formidable challenge to effective asthma care management strategies.

Combination of Biological Therapy in Severe Asthma: Where We Are?

Biological drugs have revolutionized the management of severe asthma. However, a variable number of patients remain uncontrolled or only partially controlled even after the appropriate administration of a biologic agent. The combination of two biologics may target different inflammatory pathways, and it has been used in patients suffering from uncontrolled severe asthma with evidence of both allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes or severe asthma and type2 comorbidities. Combination therapy has also been used to handle anti-IL4/13R induced hypereosinophilia. There is insufficient data on combining biologics for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma and type 2 comorbidities, also because of the high cost, and currently no guideline recommends dual biologic therapy. A systematic search was performed using the Medline and Scopus databases. Published data on concurrent administration of two biological drugs in severe, uncontrolled asthma patients has been reported in 28 real-world studies and 1 clinical trial. Data extraction was followed by a descriptive and narrative synthesis of the findings. Future studies should be conducted to further assess the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic strategy.

A risk of serious anaphylatic reactions to asthma biologics: a pharmacovigilance study based on a global real-world database

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects the lung airways. Chronic use of oral glucocorticoids in patients with severe asthma is associated with several adverse events (AEs). Biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and dupilumab) have been developed as alternative therapies for the treatment of asthma. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the risk of anaphylactic reactions associated with these five biologics based on a large global database. We utilized individual case reports from the Uppsala Monitoring Center from January 1968 to December 29, 2019. A disproportionality analysis was performed over all drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Anaphylactic reactions were defined according to the "anaphylactic reaction" of the standardized MedDRA queries. Contrary to dupilumab, omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab demonstrated positive signals related to anaphylactic reactions over all drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Reslizumab, which represented only 315 cases of all AEs, requires more reports to determine its association with anaphylactic reactions. More anaphylactic reactions have been identified than are known, and most cases (96.2%) are reported to be serious. Our findings indicate that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab for asthma treatment are associated with a high risk of anaphylactic reactions; thus, more careful monitoring in the post-administration period is recommended.

A Rapid Sputum-based Lateral Flow Assay for Airway Eosinophilia using an RNA-cleaving DNAzyme Selected for Eosinophil Peroxidase

The first protein-binding allosteric RNA-cleaving DNAzyme (RCD) obtained by direct in vitro selection against eosinophil peroxidase (EPX), a validated marker for airway eosinophilia, is described. The RCD has nanomolar affinity for EPX, shows high selectivity against related peroxidases and other eosinophil proteins, and is resistant to degradation by mammalian nucleases. An optimized RCD was used to develop both fluorescence and lateral flow assays, which were evaluated using 38 minimally processed patient sputum samples (23 non-eosinophilic, 15 eosinophilic), producing a clinical sensitivity of 100 % and specificity of 96 %. This RCD-based lateral flow assay should allow for rapid evaluation of airway eosinophilia as an aid for guiding asthma therapy.

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.

Defining response to therapy with biologics in severe asthma: from global evaluation to super response and remission

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, monoclonal antibodies targeting Type-2 inflammatory pathways have been developed for severe asthma treatment. However, even when patients are carefully selected, the response to treatment varies.

AREAS COVERED

Different studies have evaluated response to therapy with biologics such as exacerbation reduction, symptom improvement, pulmonary function increase, improvement in QoL, or decrease of oral corticosteroids, showing that all patients do not respond to all disease aspects and leading to an extensive debate regarding the definition of response.

EXPERT OPINION

Assessing response to therapy is of great importance, but since there is no uniform definition of treatment response, the recognition of patients who really benefit from these therapies remains an unmet need. In the same context, identifying non-responding patients in which biologic therapy should be switched or substituted by alternative treatment options is of paramount importance. In this review, we present the road trip of the definition of therapeutic response to biologics in severe asthmatics by presenting the current relevant medical literature. We also present the suggested predictors of response, with an emphasis on the so-called super-responders. Finally, we discuss the recent insights regarding asthma remission as a feasible treatment goal and provide a simple algorithm for the evaluation of response.

Airway autoimmunity, asthma exacerbations, and response to biologics

Biologic therapies in asthma are indicated in severe disease, and they are directed against specific inflammatory modulators that contribute to pathogenesis and severity. Currently approved biologics target T2 cytokines (IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TLSP) and have demonstrated efficacy in clinical outcomes such as exacerbation rate and oral corticosteroid dose reductions, blood and airway eosinophil depletion, and lung function improvement. However, a proportion of these patients may show inadequate responses to biologics, with either initial lack of improvement or clinical and functional worsening after an optimal initial response. Exacerbations while on a biologic may be due to several reasons, including imprecise identification of the dominant effector pathway contributing to severity, additional inflammatory pathways that are not targeted by the biologic, inaccuracies of the biomarker used to guide therapy, inadequate dosing schedules, intercurrent airway infections, anti-drug neutralizing antibodies, and a novel phenomenon of autoimmune responses in the airways interfering with the effectiveness of the monoclonal antibodies. This review, illustrated using case scenarios, describes the underpinnings of airway autoimmune responses in driving exacerbations while patients are being treated with biologics, device a strategy to evaluate such exacerbations, an algorithm to switch between biologics, and perhaps to consider two biologics concurrently.

MMKP: A mind mapping knowledgebase prototyping tool for precision medicine

Background

With significant advancements in the area of precision medicine, the breadth and complexity of the relevant knowledge in the field has increased significantly. However, the difficulty associated with dynamic modelling and the disorganization of such knowledge hinders its rapid development potential.

Results

To overcome the difficulty in using the relational database model for dynamic modelling, and to aid in the organization of precision medicine knowledge, we developed the Mind Mapping Knowledgebase Prototyping (MMKP) tool. The MMKP implements a novel design that we call a “polymorphic foreign key”, which allows the establishment of a logical linkage between a single table field and a record from any table. This design has advantages in supporting dynamic changes to the structural relationships in precision medicine knowledge. Knowledge stored in MMKP is presented as a mind map to facilitate human interaction. When using this tool, medical experts may curate the structure and content of the precision knowledge in a flow that is similar to the human thinking process.

Conclusions

The design of polymorphic foreign keys natively supports knowledge modelling in the form of mind mapping, which avoids the hard-coding of medical logic into a rigid database schema and significantly reduces the workload that is required for adapting a relational data model to future changes to the medical logic. The MMKP tool provides a graphical user interface for both data management and knowledgebase prototyping. It supports the flexible customization of the data field constraints and annotations. MMKP is available as open-source code on GitHub: https://github.com/ZjuLiangsl/mmkp.

Severe asthma and personalized approach in the choice of biologic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma requires intensive pharmacological treatment to achieve disease control. Oral corticosteroids are effective, but their use is burdened with important side effects. Biologics targeting the specific inflammatory pathways underpinning the disease have been shown to be effective but not all patients respond equally well. As we treat more patients than those who can respond, our inability to predict responders has important healthcare costs considering that biologics are expensive drugs. Thus, a more precise choice of the 'right patients' to be prescribed with the 'right biologics' would be desirable.

RECENT FINDINGS

Machine learning techniques showed that it is possible to increase our ability to predict outcomes in patients treated with biologics. Recently, we identified by cluster analysis four different clusters within the T2 high phenotype with differential benralizumab response. Two of these clusters, characterized by higher levels of inflammatory markers, showed the highest response rate (80-90%).

SUMMARY

Machine learning holds promise for asthma research enabling us to predict which patients will respond to which drug. These techniques can facilitate the diagnostic workflow and increase the chance of selecting the more appropriate treatment option for the individual patient, enhancing patient care and satisfaction.

Eosinophilic Asthma, Phenotypes-Endotypes and Current Biomarkers of Choice

Asthma phenotyping and endotyping are constantly evolving. Currently, several biologic agents have been developed towards a personalized approach to asthma management. This review will focus on different eosinophilic phenotypes and Th2-associated endotypes with eosinophilic inflammation. Additionally, airway remodeling is analyzed as a key feature of asthmatic eosinophilic endotypes. In addition, evidence of biomarkers is examined with a predictive value to identify patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma who may benefit from new treatment options. Finally, there will be a discussion on the results from clinical trials regarding severe eosinophilic asthma and how the inhibition of the eosinophilic pathway by targeted treatments has led to the reduction of recurrent exacerbations.

Using Precision Medicine for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Viral Pneumonia

The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn considerable attention to viral pneumonia from clinicians, public health authorities, and the general public. With dozens of viruses able to cause pneumonia in humans, differentiating viral from bacterial pneumonia can be very challenging in clinical practice using traditional diagnostic methods. Precision medicine is a medical model in which decisions, practices, interventions, and therapies are adapted to the individual patient on the basis of their predicted response or risk of disease. Precision medicine approaches hold promise as a way to improve outcomes for patients with viral pneumonia. This review describes the latest advances in the use of precision medicine for diagnosing and treating viral pneumonia in adults and discusses areas where further research is warranted.

Novel Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma Endotypes

Severe asthma comprises several heterogeneous phenotypes, underpinned by complex pathomechanisms known as endotypes. The latter are driven by intercellular networks mediated by molecular components which can be targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, currently available antibodies are directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13), as well as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and other alarmins. Among these therapeutic strategies, the best choice should be made according to the phenotypic/endotypic features of each patient with severe asthma, who can thus respond with significant clinical and functional improvements. Conversely, very poor options so far characterize the experimental pipelines referring to the perspective biological management of non-type 2 severe asthma, which thereby needs to be the focus of future thorough research.

Home-based treatment of biologics for asthma: who, what, where, when and why

INTRODUCTION

The advent of biologic therapies for severe asthma has profoundly changed the management of this pathology. The introduction of home administration is therefore an important innovation to optimize the patients' management, even if there are many aspects that need to be clarified and pointed out.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the path that led to the possibility of self-administration of biologics, and what the pandemic has changed in the management of these patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The growing understanding of asthma phenotypes and endotypes is enabling the careful selection of patients suitable for biologics. In this context, the availability of reliable and simple self-injection devices is important in implementing self-administration. The transition to self-injection is also possible thanks to the high safety profile of biologics. With attention, most patients may potentially be suitable for self-administration. The transition process from hospital to home administration can therefore be carried out correctly by clinicians with adequate expertise in the field of severe asthma and biologic therapies, with the support of other health professionals, pharmacists, and general practitioners. Home administration is probably the best way to guarantee high adherence and high-level satisfaction of patients, even in the long term.