Severe refractory asthma: current treatment options and ongoing research

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.

Unremitting Asthma as a Presentation of Pulmonary Nocardiosis: A Case Report

Severe, refractory asthma requires a combination of multiple maintenance inhalers and medications including high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and immunomodulators to achieve control of symptoms. The use of inhaled corticosteroids, however, increases the susceptibility of opportunistic bacterial infections, such as Nocardia, resulting in pulmonary nocardiosis. This case describes a 46-year-old patient with a history of severe, refractory asthma who presented with progressively worsening asthma exacerbation symptoms. She was treated with immunomodulators, high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and oral steroids, and several courses of antibiotics. CT imaging revealed bibasilar peri-bronchial thickening and tree-in-bud nodularity in the right lower lobe. Pulmonary cultures collected from bronchoscopy grew Nocardia nova complex. This was a rare case of persistent asthma exacerbation by N. nova complex bronchopulmonary infection. Broad differentials should be considered in patients with severe, refractory asthma who were previously controlled and were found to fail treatment therapies. Immunocompromised patients with chronic lung disease are at higher risk of severe infection with disseminated nocardiosis. These patients have a higher mortality and morbidity risk if early diagnosis of pulmonary nocardiosis does not occur.

Interleukin 31 receptor α promotes smooth muscle cell contraction and airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease characterized by airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), inflammation, and goblet cell hyperplasia. Multiple cytokines, including IFNγ, IL-4, and IL-13 are associated with asthma; however, the mechanisms underlying the effects of these cytokines remain unclear. Here, we report a significant increase in the expression of IL-31RA, but not its cognate ligand IL-31, in mouse models of allergic asthma. In support of this, IFNγ, IL-4, and IL-13 upregulated IL-31RA but not IL-31 in both human and mice primary airway smooth muscle cells (ASMC) isolated from the airways of murine and human lungs. Importantly, the loss of IL-31RA attenuated AHR but had no effect on inflammation and goblet cell hyperplasia in mice challenged with allergens or treated with IL-13 or IFNγ. We show that IL-31RA functions as a positive regulator of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor 3 expression, augmenting calcium levels and myosin light chain phosphorylation in human and murine ASMC. These findings identify a role for IL-31RA in AHR that is distinct from airway inflammation and goblet cell hyperplasia in asthma.

[The profile of severe asthmatics: Results from a specialized asthma clinic]

Introduction

In patients with severe asthma, individualized treatment, and appropriate phenotyping are required to achieve control. In our study, our aim was to examine the characteristics of a specific patient group in a specialized tertiary asthma outpatient clinic, which is the primary setting for evaluating severe asthma patients, with the intention of obtaining national data.

Materials and Methods

In this cross-sectional observational study, sociodemographic, clinical presentations, laboratory results, and spirometry measurements of patients with severe asthma who were followed up in our specialized asthma outpatient clinic for at least one year were recorded. Patients were defined as eosinophilic if they had a blood eosinophil count of 300/µL or higher at least twice during the oral corticosteroid free-period or 150/µL or higher under oral corticosteroids as allergic if they had sensitization to at least one inhalant allergen consistent with their history.

Result

Overall, 201 severe asthma patients (74.1% female) with a median disease duration of 15 (min-max= 1-49) years and a median follow-up duration of 7 (min-max= 1-40) years were analyzed. Most of the patients (56.7%) had adult-onset asthma [median age of onset was 32 (min-max= 10-62) years]. Overweight and obese patients were in the majority (31.8%, and 41.8%, respectively) and the median body mass index was 29 (min-max= 17.5-49.5). More than half of the patients (55.2%) had controlled asthma and the median Asthma Control Test score at the last visit was 23. Biologic therapies were applied to 73.1% (n= 147) of the patients [60.5% (n= 89) omalizumab, 39.5% (n= 58) mepolizumab]. Half of the group was allergic (49.3%) and three-quarters of them were eosinophilic (72.1%). Allergic patients had earlier asthma onset and had more controlled disease than nonallergic ones. Eosinophilic patients were younger and less obese than noneosinophilic patients. Obese and late-onset asthmatics had more uncontrolled disease than normal weight subjects and early onset patients.

Conclusions

The high rate of disease control in the patients with severe asthma in the current study demonstrated the importance of targeted individualized therapy with accurate phenotyping in specialized asthma outpatient clinics.

Interleukin 31 receptor alpha augments muscarinic acetylcholine receptor 3-driven calcium signaling and airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease characterized by airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), inflammation, and goblet cell hyperplasia. Both Th1 and Th2 cytokines, including IFN-γ, IL-4, and IL-13 have been shown to induce asthma; however, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We observed a significant increase in the expression of IL-31RA, but not its cognate ligand IL-31 during allergic asthma. In support of this, IFN-γ and Th2 cytokines, IL-4 and IL-13, upregulated IL-31RA but not IL-31 in airway smooth muscle cells (ASMC). Importantly, the loss of IL-31RA attenuated AHR but had no effects on inflammation and goblet cell hyperplasia in allergic asthma or mice treated with IL-13 or IFN-γ. Mechanistically, we demonstrate that IL-31RA functions as a positive regulator of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor 3 expression and calcium signaling in ASMC. Together, these results identified a novel role for IL-31RA in AHR distinct from airway inflammation and goblet cell hyperplasia in asthma.

Effective Management of Severe Asthma with Biologic Medications in Adult Patients: A Literature Review and International Expert Opinion

Severe asthma often remains uncontrolled despite effective treatments and evidence-based guidelines. A group of global experts in asthma and biologic medications from 9 countries considered the most relevant clinical variables to manage severe asthma in adult patients and guide treatment choice. The resulting recommendations address the investigation of biomarker levels (blood eosinophil count along with fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]), clinical features (oral corticosteroid [OCS] dependence, specific comorbid disease entities associated with severe type 2 asthma), and safety considerations. Current evidence suggests that biomarkers, including both blood or sputum eosinophil counts as well as FeNO, add prognostic and predictive value and should be measured in all patients with severe asthma. OCS use is an important factor in biologic selection, especially given the documented ability of some biologics to reduce OCS dependence. Comorbid diseases and relevant safety considerations to each biologic should also be considered. More data are needed to determine whether biomarker profiles identify patients suited to one biologic versus another as limited data support differential predictors of response. Further prospective head-to-head trials and post hoc analyses of clinical trial data are warranted. The authors believe that these recommendations have value as they offer expert opinion to assist health care providers in making difficult decisions regarding the quality of care in severe, type 2 asthma with biologic medications. They remain conditional and are based on limited data owing to a lack of head-to-head comparisons.

Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for severe asthma: A systematic review

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases characterized by sex disparities. Gender bias is a well-documented issue detected in the design of published clinical trials (CTs). International guidelines encourage researchers to analyze clinical data by sex, gender, or both where appropriate. The objective of this work was to evaluate gender bias in the published CTs of biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma. A systematic review of randomized controlled CTs of the biological agents (omalizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, mepolizumab or dupilumab) for the treatment of severe asthma was conducted. The literature search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE without language restrictions. This study followed the corresponding international recommendations. We identified a total of 426 articles, of which 37 were finally included. Women represented 60.4% of patients included. The mean percentage of women in these trials was 59.9%, ranged from 40.8% to 76.7%. The separate analysis by sex of the main variable was only performed in 5 of the 37 publications included, and none of the trials analyzed secondary variables by sex. Only 1 of the articles discussed the results separately by sex. No study included the concept of gender in the text or analyzed the results separately by gender. The proportion of women included in CTs was higher compared to publications of other disciplines, where women were under-represented. The analysis of the main and secondary variables by sex or gender, even the discussion separately by sex, was insufficient. This gives rise to potential gender bias in these CTs.

Uncontrolled Asthma: Unmet Needs in the Management of Patients

The recent scientific research has provided clinicians with the tools for substantially upgrading the standard of care in the field of bronchial asthma. Nevertheless, satisfactory asthma control still remains an unmet need worldwide. Identifying the major determinants of poor control in different asthma severity levels represents the first step towards the improvement of the overall patients' management. The present review aims to provide an overview of the main unmet needs in asthma control and of the potential tools for overcoming the issue. Implementing a personalized medicine approach is essential, not only in terms of pharmacological treatments, biologic drugs or sophisticated biomarkers. In fact, exploring the complex profile of each patient, from his inflammation phenotype to his preferences and expectations, may help in filling the gap between the big potential of currently available treatments and the overall unsatisfactory asthma control. Telemedicine and e-health technologies may provide a strategy to both optimize disease assessment on a regular basis and enhance patients' empowerment in managing their asthma. Increasing patients' awareness as well as the physicians' knowledge about asthma phenotypes and treatment options besides corticosteroid probably represent the key and more difficult goals of all the players involved in asthma management at every level.

Immunological Aspects Related to Viral Infections in Severe Asthma and the Role of Omalizumab

Viral respiratory infections are recognized risk factors for the loss of control of allergic asthma and the induction of exacerbations, both in adults and children. Severe asthma is more susceptible to virus-induced asthma exacerbations, especially in the presence of high IgE levels. In the course of immune responses to viruses, an initial activation of innate immunity typically occurs and the production of type I and III interferons is essential in the control of viral spread. However, the Th2 inflammatory environment still appears to be protective against viral infections in general and in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections as well. As for now, literature data, although extremely limited and preliminary, show that severe asthma patients treated with biologics don't have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or progression to severe forms compared to the non-asthmatic population. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, exerts a profound cellular effect, which can stabilize the effector cells, and is becoming much more efficient from the point of view of innate immunity in contrasting respiratory viral infections. In addition to the antiviral effect, clinical efficacy and safety of this biological allow a great improvement in the management of asthma.

Asthma and stroke: a narrative review

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, usually characterized by chronic airway inflammation, bronchial reversible obstruction and hyperresponsiveness to direct or indirect stimuli. It is a severe disease causing approximately half a million deaths every year and thus possessing a significant public health burden. Stroke is the second leading cause of death and a major cause of disability worldwide. Asthma and asthma medications may be a risk factors for developing stroke. Nevertheless, since asthma is associated with a variety of comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, metabolic and respiratory, the increased incidence of stroke in asthma patients may be due to a confounding effect. The purpose of this review is to analyze the complex relationship between asthma and stroke.

A case of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with marked peripheral blood eosinophilia successfully treated with benralizumab

We herein report a case of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) with marked eosinophilia and high attenuation mucus (HAM) on chest computed tomography (CT), which demonstrated a rapid and remarkable improvement with benralizumab treatment. A 67-year-old Japanese woman, who was diagnosed with asthma at the age of 64 years, was admitted with dyspnea. Her blood test results showed marked eosinophilia (peripheral blood eosinophil count 24403/μL) and elevated serum IgE levels. Chest CT also revealed ground-glass opacity. Sputum cytology detected filamentous fungi, suggesting an infection with Aspergillus spp. Based on these findings, ABPA was diagnosed. Following systemic corticosteroid treatment, her respiratory symptoms and chest radiography findings showed improvements. However, with the gradual tapering and eventual discontinuance of the corticosteroid therapy, a concomitant increase in the peripheral blood eosinophils and a recurrence of the clinical symptoms, was observed. In addition, her pulmonary function decreased and chest CT revealed worsened bronchial mucus plugs. To control the asthma with ABPA exacerbation, benralizumab was administered. Following treatment with benralizumab, the patient's asthmatic symptoms improved, together with a decrease in her peripheral eosinophil count. Mucus plugs were no longer visible on chest CT. Pulmonary function test result also showed a remarkable improvement. There was no relapse of dyspnea and no reappearance of the mucus plugs. This case suggests that benralizumab may be a suitable treatment option for patients with ABPA with marked eosinophilia and HAM on chest CT.

A narrative review of research advances in mesenchymal stem cell therapy for asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that involves multiple cells, including inflammatory cells, structural cells, and cellular components. Glucocorticoids and beta-receptor agonists are still the first choices for asthma treatment. However, the asthma symptoms may still be poorly controlled in some patients after an optimal treatment. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are characterized by the potential for multi-directional differentiation and can exert immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Its role in treating asthma has increasingly been recognized in recent years. In this review article, we sought to summarize the recent advances in the therapeutic effects of MSCs on several types of asthma and explain the relevant mechanisms. Articles on asthma treatment with MSCs as of January 2020 were searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases. It was found that MSCs have therapeutic effects on allergic asthma, non-allergic asthma and occupational asthma; gene-modified or pretreated MSCs improves the therapeutic effects of MSCs in asthma; MSC-derived conditioned medium or extracellular vesicles possess the considerable curative effect as MSC on asthma; and MSCs exert their therapeutic effects on asthma by restoring Th1/Th2 balance, reversing Th17/Tregs imbalance, inhibiting DC maturation, and promoting the switch of M1 to M2 and repairing epithelial injury. Thus, MSCs may be a promising treatment for asthma.

Biologics for the Treatments of Allergic Conditions: Severe Asthma

By selectively targeting specific steps of the immune inflammation cascade, biologic drugs for severe asthma have substantially contributed to increase the standard of care, to reduce drug-related morbidity. and most importantly to ameliorate patients' quality of life. Upcoming molecules are going to provide a chance for severe phenotypes besides Th2 high through the interaction with epithelial and innate immunity. Some practical aspects including optimal treatment duration, the possibility of a dose treatment modulation, the place and relevance of ICS in best responders are still under debate. Long-term safety, especially when interacting with innate immunity needs to be further investigated.

Anti-IL5 Therapies for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Literature Review and Practical Insights

Severe refractory asthma (SRA) still has a high economic and social impact, including a reduction in quality of life (QoL), productivity, a greater risk of exacerbations and emergency department (ED) visits. Another major issue is the need of oral corticosteroids (OCS), often due to a poor response to standard therapies or the lack of indication for currently available biological drugs. A thorough understanding of the immunological pathways and eosinophilopoietic processes allows a correct application of the new pharmacological strategies and leads to better clinical responses. For these unmet needs, several monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have been introduced over the past few years. These are mainly available for allergic and especially eosinophilic uncontrolled refractory asthma. As the number of therapeutic options increases, the choice of biological drugs can be made only after careful considerations of the particular asthma endotype, patients’ comorbidities and clinical data. The selection of the correct therapeutic option can therefore be guided after a careful evaluation of the particular endotype and phenotype, from the combined evaluation of inflammatory biomarkers, clinical picture and comorbidities. The careful evaluation of all these parameters can therefore help the physician in the optimal management of these complex patients, for whom it is often possible to achieve exceptional results by managing the available options in the best possible way. The aim of this review is to define the positioning of the biological drugs currently available for type 2 asthma, with a special focus on options for eosinophilic asthma in the context of the most recent knowledge of immunological pathways.

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background

Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience.

Methods

We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared.

Results

Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.

Biologics and Bronchial Thermoplasty for severe refractory asthma treatment: From eligibility criteria to real practice. A cross-sectional study

The increasing knowledge on immuno-inflammatory pathways allowed the development of new therapeutic options in the field of severe refractory asthma (SRA). It is therefore very important to accurately identify phenotypes and endotypes of patients potentially eligible for innovative treatments. The aim of this study was to describe a cohort of patients affected by SRA referring to the Pneumology Unit of Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia/IRCCS in Reggio Emilia, Italy. It is an observational cross-sectional study, investigating the proportion of subjects with eligibility criteria for biological treatments (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab) and non-pharmacological treatment (bronchial thermoplasty, BT). We enrolled 137 patients with SRA referring to the centre from June 1st, 2017 to June 30th, 2019. The results of this study showed that 125 (91%) of patients were eligible for at least one biologic and 94 (69%) were eligible for BT. Only 6 (4%) of patients had no criteria for any available SRA treatments. Among biologics, there were only 11 (8%) patients resulting in overlap between omalizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab, and 22 (16%) overlap of patients when BT was included. Considering eligibility criteria for BT, only 6 (4%) patients had inclusion criteria for BT, instead in real life 28% of patients were treated with BT. The major comorbidities were: bronchiectasis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). The prevalence of bronchiectasis was much higher in the mepolizumab (45%) and benralizumab (43%) groups than in omalizumab (1%) and BT (7%), p < 0,001; CRSwNP and GERD were equally present and EGPA was only present in the mepolizumab group. Overall, our population was eligible for biologicals in almost all cases, and a significant percentage of patients showed the presence of an overlap of allergic and eosinophilic endotypes. This implies the possibility of different therapeutic options and reiterates the need for a correct characterization of patients. This study confirmed how the identification of inflammatory endotypes and phenotypes represent a key role in the selection of the right therapy for the right patient.

What have recent advances in therapy taught us about severe asthma disease mechanisms?

Introduction: Severe asthma still represents a worldwide challenge. The need for further treatment options has stimulated basic and pharmacological research to focus on the immune and inflammatory background of asthma. The new biologic drugs express the considerable advances in the field and besides providing a revolutionary treatment option for severe asthma, contribute themselves to better understand the pathophysiologic mechanisms they address, paving the way to new potential targets.Areas covered: A selective search on PubMed and Medline was performed, including the evidence on immunology of severe asthma published up to May 2019 by focusing on the immunological effects of biologic drugs underlying their clinical outcomes.Expert opinion: The recent pharmacological research in the field of biologics has represented an exceptional opportunity for exploring severe asthma mechanisms. However, some points deserve to be addressed by further investigation. Although in the absence of safety warnings so far, interfering with the immune system may raise some safety concerns, especially in the long-term use. Particularly when interacting with epithelial and innate immunity the selection of candidates probably deserves special caution. Also, whether biologics exert a true disease-modifying effect is not completely clear. As a direct practical implication, the optimal treatment duration is still controversial.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

Targeting eosinophils: severe asthma and beyond

Recent research in the field of bronchial asthma has mainly focused on eosinophilic disease phenotype. Several trials proved the efficacy and safety profile of eosinophils and interleukin (IL)-5 targeting molecules, currently approved for severe asthma and available on the market. They include mepolizumab and reslizumab, IL-5 blocking molecules, and benralizumab, targeting the IL-5 receptor and eliciting a NK cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against eosinophils. Eosinophilic inflammation represents the common pathophysiological background of several conditions, providing the rationale for the use of the same biologics beyond asthma. Although with different evidence grade, from clinical trials to case reports, anti-IL-5 biologics have been investigated in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, chronic eosinophilic pneumonia, nasal polyposis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and eosinophilic esophagitis. However, non-negligible differences between asthma and other eosinophilic diseases, particularly in eosinophils homing (blood and/or tissues), target organs and thus clinical features, probably account for the different response to the same drug in different clinical conditions and highlights the need for tailoring the therapeutic approach by modulating the drug dose and/or by combination therapy with multiple drugs. The optimal safety and tolerability profile of anti-IL-5 drugs warrants further and larger experimental and real-life investigations, which are needed especially in the field of non-asthma eosinophilic diseases. This review aims at summarizing the rationale for the use of biologics in eosinophilic diseases and their mechanisms of action. The current efficacy and safety evidence about eosinophils and IL-5 targeting molecules in asthma and in eosinophilic conditions beyond bronchi is also discussed.

New horizons for the treatment of severe, eosinophilic asthma: benralizumab, a novel precision biologic

In the last decades, the increasing evidence concerning inflammation mechanisms underlying severe eosinophilic asthma has highlighted new potential therapeutic targets and has paved the way to new selective biologic drugs. Understanding the mechanism of action and the clinical outcomes of a particular drug along with the clinical and biological characteristics of the patient population for which that drug was intended may ensure appropriate selection of patients that will respond to that drug. Under this perspective, the present review will focus on the mechanisms of action and clinical evidence of benralizumab as a treatment option for severe eosinophilic asthma, in order to provide a concise overview and a reference for clinical practice. Benralizumab is a fully humanized afucosylated IgG1κ mAb that binds to an epitope on IL-5 Rα, and inhibits IL-5 signaling. Benralizumab also sustains antibody-directed cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) of eosinophils and basophils and consequently depletes IL-5Rα-expressing cells. As a result, it is responsible for a substantial depletion of blood, tissue, and bone marrow eosinophilia. This unique mechanism of action may account for a more complete and rapid action profile. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that benralizumab provides an optimal safety profile, and is able to significantly reduce asthma exacerbations, oral steroid intake, and to improve lung function. Some clinical predictors of enhanced clinical response to benralizumab have also been identified, including: a level of blood eosinophils ≥300 μL⁻¹, oral steroids use, the presence of nasal polyposis, FVC <65% of predicted, and a history of three or more exacerbations per year at baseline. These results can be helpful in identifying the best responder patients to benralizumab. As a step forward, the definition of the responder profile for each of the available biological treatment options will potentially support even more the pathway to precision medicine and the critical matching of the right drug with the right patient.

Efficacy and steroid-sparing effect of benralizumab: has it an advantage over its competitors?

Severe refractory asthma is characterized by a higher risk of asthma-related symptoms, morbidities, and exacerbations. This disease also determines much greater healthcare costs and deterioration in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). Another concern, which is currently much discussed, is the high percentage of patients needing regular use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), which can lead to several systemic side effects. Airway eosinophilia is present in the majority of asthmatic patients, and elevated levels of blood and sputum eosinophils are associated with worse control of asthma. Regarding severe refractory eosinophilic asthma, interleukin-5 (IL-5) plays a fundamental role in the inflammatory response, due to the profound effect on eosinophils biology. The advent of the biological therapies provided an effective strategy, even if the increased number of molecules with different targets raised the challenge of choosing the right therapy and avoid overlapping. When considering severe refractory eosinophilic asthma and anti-IL-5 treatments, it is not easy to define which drug to choose between mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab.

In this article, we carried out an indirect comparison among literature data, especially between OCS reduction studies (ZONDA-SIRIUS) and pivotal studies (SIROCCO-MENSA), evaluating whether the clinical efficacy and the steroid-sparing effect of benralizumab may represent an advantage over other compounds. This data could help the clinician in the decision process of treatment choice, within the different available therapeutic options for eosinophilic refractory severe asthma.