Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with asthma who had elevated blood eosinophil levels and marginal asthma control despite treatment with high-dose inhaled or oral glucocorticoids, asthma exacerbations were reduced in those receiving a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates interleukin-5. Severe asthma affects less than 10% of patients with asthma and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and a large fraction of the health care costs among patients with asthma. 1 – 3 Despite available care, recurrent asthma exacerbations are a major issue in a subgroup of patients with eosinophilic airway inflammation. 4 – 6 Mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5, selectively inhibits eosinophilic inflammation 7 , 8 and reduces the number of eosinophils in both sputum and blood, resulting in a reduction in exacerbations and in the need for treatment with systemic glucocorticoids. 7 – 12 In the Dose Ranging Efficacy and Safety with Mepolizumab . . .

Rationale Knowledge about the clinical importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in severe asthma is limited. Objectives To assess whether and to what extent asthma exacerbations affect changes in PROMS over time and asthma-specific PROMs can predict exacerbations in adult patients with severe asthma in usual care. Methods Data of 421 patients with severe asthma (62% female; mean age 51.9 ± 13.4 years; mean FEV 1 67.5 ± 21.3%pred) from the U-BIOPRED cohort were analyzed. The included PROMs were: Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5); Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ); Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS); Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS); Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS); Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT20). Participants were assessed at baseline and after 12–18 months of usual care. Results PROMs showed very weak to weak correlations with clinical characteristics such as age, body mass index, FEV 1 , FeNO and eosinophilic cell count. Patients presenting no exacerbations during follow-up showed a statistically significant improvement in all PROMs (except for MARS), whereas individuals experiencing > 2 exacerbations showed a deterioration. Baseline ACQ5 was a predictor of exacerbations with an AUC of 0.590 (95%CI 0.514–0.666). Conclusions The association of PROMs with clinical measures was poor in severe asthmatics. Moreover, PROMs were prone to changes in usual care, with exacerbations playing a key role. PROMs need to be systematically evaluated in severe asthma to improve clinical care based on specific patient’s needs.

BackgroundTo date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.AimTo elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.MethodsThis was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.ResultsOverall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE.ConclusionsThe ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Severe asthma in children carries an unacceptable treatment burden, yet its rarity means clinical experience in treating it is limited, even among specialists. Practical guidance is needed to support clinical decision-making to optimize treatment for children with this condition. This modified Delphi convened 16 paediatric pulmonologists and allergologists from northern Europe, all experienced in treating children with severe asthma. Informed by interviews with stakeholders involved in the care of children with severe asthma (including paediatricians, nurses and carers), and an analysis of European guidelines, the experts built a consensus focused on the gaps in existing guidance. Explored were considerations for optimizing care for patients needing biologic treatment, and for selecting home or hospital delivery of biologics. This consensus is aimed at clinicians in specialist centres, as well as general paediatricians, paediatric allergologists and paediatric pulmonologists who refer children with the most severe asthma to specialist care. Consensus is based on expert opinion and is intended for use alongside published guidelines. Our discussions revealed three key facets to optimizing care. Firstly, early asthma detection in children presenting with wheezing and/or dyspnoea is vital, with a low threshold for referral from primary to specialist care. Secondly, children who may need biologics should be referred to and managed by specialist paediatric asthma centres; we define principles for the specialist team members, tests, and expertise necessary at such centres, as well as guidance on when homecare biologics delivery is and is not appropriate. Thirdly, shared decision-making is essential at all stages of the patient’s journey: clear, concise treatment plans are vital for patient/carer self-management, and structured processes for transition from paediatric to adult services are valuable. The experts identified the potential for specialist paediatric asthma nurses to play a significant role in facilitating multidisciplinary working. Through this project is agreed a framework of practical advice to optimize the care of children with severe asthma. We encourage clinicians and policymakers to implement this practical advice to enhance patient care.

Background: Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma with type 2 inflammation. Although such treatments are very effective in reducing exacerbation and the dose of oral steroids, little is known about the persistence of symptoms in severe asthma patients treated with biologics. Purpose: We aim to describe asthma control and healthcare consumption of severe asthma patients treated with biologics. Design: The Second Souffle study is a real-life prospective observational study endorsed by the Clinical Research Initiative in Severe Asthma: a Lever for Innovation & Science Network. Methods: Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of severe asthma for at least 12 months’ duration were enrolled in the study. A self-administered questionnaire including the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and a compliance evaluation test was given to the patients. Healthcare consumption within 12 months prior to enrolment was documented. In patients receiving biologics, doctors indicated whether the patients were biologic responders or non-responders. Results: The characteristics of 431 patients with severe asthma were analysed. Among them, 409 patients (94.9%) presented asthma with type 2 inflammation (T2 high) profile, and 297 (72.6%) patients with a T2 high phenotype were treated with a biologic. Physicians estimated that 88.2% of patients receiving biologics were responders. However, asthma control was only achieved in 25.3% of those patients (ACQ > 0.75). A high proportion of patients (77.8%) identified as responders to biologics were not controlled according to the ACQ score. About 50% of patients continue to use oral corticosteroids either daily (25.2%) or more than three times a year for at least three consecutive days (25.6%). Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea syndrome (OSA) were identified as independent factors associated with uncontrolled asthma. Conclusion: Although a high proportion of severe asthma patients respond to biologics, only 25.3% have controlled asthma. GERD and OSA are independent factors of uncontrolled asthma.

Background Nasal polyposis (NP) is a comorbidity of type 2 severe asthma (SA) which could influence response to SA biologics. Methods We evaluated (super-) response in SA patients with (NP +) and without NP (NP−) enrolled in the Belgian Severe Asthma Registry (BSAR). Results 914 patients, of whom 31% NP + , were included. At enrollment, NP + patients had higher annual exacerbation rates, higher number of emergency room visits and more elevated type 2 biomarkers. In the longitudinal subanalysis of 104 patients, both groups had significant and similar asthma responses to asthma biologics, except for a greater increase in FEV 1 in the NP + group. Super-response was achieved in 33 patients (32%), irrespective of NP status or type of biologic. Conclusion In conclusion, both NP + and NP − patients had positive treatment responses, with some able to achieve super-response. In SA patients with NP, a greater FEV 1 improvement as compared to SA patients without NP was observed.

To compare a novel asthma management strategy--budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for both maintenance therapy and symptom relief--with a higher dose of budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. This was a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma (n = 697; mean age, 38 years [range, 11 to 79 years]; mean baseline FEV1, 75% of predicted; mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dosage, 348 microg/d). Following a 2-week run-in period, all patients received two blinded, dry powder inhalers, one containing maintenance medication and one containing medication to be used as needed for the relief of symptoms. Patients were randomized to receive either budesonide/formoterol (80 microg/4.5 microg, two inhalations qd) for maintenance plus additional inhalations as needed for symptom relief, or budesonide (160 microg, two inhalations qd) for maintenance medication plus terbutaline (0.4 mg) as needed. The primary efficacy variable was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol showed greater improvements in morning PEF than patients receiving budesonide (increases of 34.5 L/min vs 9.5 L/min, respectively; p < 0.001). The risk of having a severe exacerbation (hospitalization/emergency department [ED] treatment, oral steroids for asthma, or a > or = 30% decrease from baseline in morning PEF on 2 consecutive days) was 54% lower with budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide (p = 0.0011). Budesonide/formoterol patients experienced 90% fewer hospitalizations/ED treatments due to asthma than budesonide patients (1 vs 10, respectively; p = 0.026). The increased efficacy with budesonide/formoterol was achieved with less ICS than was used in the budesonide group (mean dose, 240 microg/d vs 320 microg/d, respectively) and with 77% fewer oral steroid treatment days vs budesonide (114 days vs 498 days, respectively). Both treatments were well tolerated. Budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and relief improves asthma control with a lower steroid load compared with a higher dose of budesonide plus terbutaline.

Background Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) receptor α monoclonal antibody, significantly reduces the number of annual exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) maintenance doses for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). However, few studies on the efficacy of this biologic in real life are available. The aim was to elucidate the efficacy of benralizumab by evaluating changes in clinical parameters after benralizumab treatment in patients with SEA. Methods From July 2018 to December 2019, 24 Japanese patients with SEA received benralizumab at Jikei University Hospital. We retrospectively evaluated the patients’ characteristics, parameters, numbers of exacerbations and maintenance OCS doses. Results Among the 24 patients, eleven patients had received mepolizumab treatment and were directly switched to benralizumab. The peripheral blood eosinophil and basophil counts significantly decreased after benralizumab treatment regardless of previous mepolizumab treatment. Pulmonary function, Asthma Control Test scores, the numbers of annual exacerbations and maintenance OCS doses in patients without previous mepolizumab treatment tended to improve without significant differences. Fourteen patients (58%) were responders according to the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) score. The proportion of GETE responders among patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) tended to be lower than that among patients without AERD ( p  = 0.085). After benralizumab treatment, the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s from baseline was 200 ml or greater in eight patients (33%), including three patients who were switched from mepolizumab. Conclusion Benralizumab treatment improved and controlled asthma symptoms based on the GETE score.

The discovery that patients with asthma can be dichotomized according to levels of type 2 inflammation, and hence their response to inhibitors of this pathway, promises to enhance our understanding of pathogenic mechanisms and personalized therapies. Asthma is one of the most common chronic immunological diseases in humans, affecting people from childhood to old age. Progress in treating asthma has been relatively slow and treatment guidelines have mostly recommended empirical approaches on the basis of clinical measures of disease severity rather than on the basis of the underlying mechanisms of pathogenesis. An important molecular mechanism of asthma is type 2 inflammation, which occurs in many but not all patients. In this Opinion article, I explore the role of type 2 inflammation in asthma, including lessons learnt from clinical trials of inhibitors of type 2 inflammation. I consider how dichotomizing asthma according to levels of type 2 inflammation — into 'T helper 2 (T H 2)-high' and 'T H 2-low' subtypes (endotypes) — has shaped our thinking about the pathobiology of asthma and has generated new interest in understanding the mechanisms of disease that are independent of type 2 inflammation.

Among patients with asthma who had elevated blood eosinophil levels and marginal asthma control despite glucocorticoid treatment, the glucocorticoid dose could be significantly reduced in patients receiving a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates interleukin-5. Asthma is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that affects 5 to 10% of adults and children. Although the disease is well controlled with inhaled therapy in most patients, approximately 10% have severe asthma that is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic effects. 1 Patients with severe asthma have complex treatment requirements, which in 30 to 40% of such patients include the regular use of oral glucocorticoids to control their asthma. 2 – 4 Such therapy can result in serious and often irreversible adverse effects. 5 , 6 Current treatments with glucocorticoid-sparing properties are not recommended in patients with severe asthma because . . .