Search

Objective: Acute exacerbations (AEs) of asthma are heterogeneous in terms of triggers, outcomes, and treatment response. This study investigated biomarker defined infective and inflammatory AE phenotypes in hospitalized adult asthma patients, and their impact on clinical outcomes and phenotype stability at AE recurrence., Method: Patients with asthma admitted with an AE between January 2010 and December 2011 with a 3-year follow-up were retrospectively studied. AEs were categorized into infective (CRP >10 mg/L) vs non-infective, eosinophilic (blood eosinophils ≥ 0.2 × 10 9 cells/L) vs non-eosinophilic, and viral (CRP >10 to <40 mg/L) vs bacterial (CRP ≥40 mg/L) phenotypes. Clinical impact of the index AE, the risk and time to a second AE and AE phenotype stability were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and McNamar's test., Result: 294 asthma patients were included: 47% had infective AE with a longer length of stay than non-infective AE (2.0 vs. 1.0 days, p  = 0.01). The proportion of patients with eosinophilic AEs was evenly distributed across infective and non-infective AE (40% vs. 46%), although more patients with viral had eosinophilia than bacterial AE (46% vs. 26%). During follow-up, 18% had recurrent AE; with a higher risk in viral AE than bacterial AE (25% vs. 8%, p  = 0.02). Both inflammatory and infective AE phenotype were stable at recurrent AE., Conclusion: AE phenotyping in hospitalized asthma patients, based on CRP and blood eosinophils, revealed prolonged hospital stay in infective AEs and a higher risk of recurrent AE requiring hospitalization in viral versus bacterial AEs. Moreover, infective, and inflammatory AE phenotypes were rather stable at recurrent AE. Our results suggest a role for biomarker guided phenotyping of AEs of asthma.

Background: Long-term tezepelumab treatment in the DESTINATION study (NCT03706079) resulted in reduced asthma exacerbations, reduced biomarker levels, and improved lung function and symptom control in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma., Objective: To explore the time course of changes in biomarkers and clinical manifestations after treatment cessation after 2 years of tezepelumab treatment., Methods: DESTINATION was a 2-year, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of tezepelumab treatment in patients (12-80 years old) with severe asthma. Patients received their last treatment doses at week 100 and could enroll in an extended follow-up period from weeks 104 to 140. Change over time in key biomarkers and clinical outcomes were assessed in tezepelumab vs placebo recipients for 40 weeks after stopping treatment., Results: Of 569 patients enrolled in the extended follow-up period, 426 were included in the analysis (289 received tezepelumab and 137 placebo). In the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose, blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 scores gradually increased from weeks 4 to 10, with a gradual reduction in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second such that blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and clinical outcomes returned to placebo levels; however, none of these outcomes returned to baseline levels. Total IgE levels increased later from week 28 and remained well below placebo and baseline levels during the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose., Conclusion: This analysis reveals the benefits of continued tezepelumab treatment in the management of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, compared with stopping treatment after 2 years., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03706079., Competing Interests: Disclosures Prof Brightling has received grants and consultancy fees from 4D Pharma, Areteia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Genentech, GSK, Global Access Diagnostics (formerly Mologic), Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr Caminati has received fees from AstraZeneca for serving on advisory boards and has received speaker fees from GSK and Sanofi. Dr Llanos and Dr Caveney are employees of Amgen and own stock in Amgen. Dr Kotalik, Dr Lundahl, Ms Gołąbek, Dr Martin, and Dr Ponnarambil are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Griffiths was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study. Prof Israel has served as a consultant to and received personal fees from 4D Pharma, AB Science, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avillion, Biometry, Cowen, Equillium, Genentech, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pneuma Respiratory, PPS Health, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; has received nonfinancial support from Circassia Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Vorso Corp; and has received clinical research grants from AstraZeneca, Avillion, Genentech, Gossamer Bio, Novartis, and Sanofi. Prof Pavord has received speaker fees from Aerocrine AB, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; has received payments for organization of educational events from AstraZeneca, GSK, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; has received consultancy fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia Pharmaceuticals, Dey Pharma, Genentech, GSK, Knopp Biosciences, Merck, MSD, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RespiVert, Sanofi, Schering-Plough, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; has received international scientific meeting sponsorship from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; and has received a research grant from Chiesi. Prof Wechsler has received consulting, advisory or speaker fees from Amgen, Areteia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Avalo Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex Therapeutics, Cellergy Pharma, Cerecor, CytoReason, Eli Lilly, Equillium, GSK, Incyte, Kinaset Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Om Pharma, Overtone Therapeutics/Foresite Labs, Phylaxis Bioscience, PULMATRiX, Rapt Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi/Genzyme, Sentien Biotechnologies, Sound Biologics, Tetherex Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Upstream Bio and Verona Pharma. Prof Porsbjerg has received grants and consultancy fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr Corren has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Vectura; and has received grants from Optinose, Sanofi, and Teva Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 biologics effectively reduce exacerbations and the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) in severe eosinophilic asthma. However, it is unknown how long anti-IL-5 treatment should be continued. Data from clinical trials indicate a gradual but variable loss of control after treatment cessation. In this pilot study of titration, we evaluated a dose-titration algorithm in patients who had achieved clinical control on an anti-IL-5 biologic., Methods: In this open-label randomised controlled trial conducted over 52 weeks, patients with clinical control (no exacerbations or mOCS) on anti-IL-5 treatment were randomised to continue with unchanged intervals or have dosing intervals adjusted according to a titration algorithm that gradually extended dosing intervals and reduced them again at signs of loss of disease control. The OPTIMAL algorithm was designed to down-titrate dosing until signs of loss of control, to enable assessment of the longest dosing interval possible., Results: Among 73 patients enrolled, 37 patients were randomised to the OPTIMAL titration arm; 78% of patients tolerated down-titration of treatment. Compared to the control arm, the OPTIMAL arm tended to have more exacerbations during the study (32% versus 17%; p=0.13). There were no severe adverse events related to titration, and lung function and symptoms scores remained stable and comparable in both study arms throughout., Conclusion: This study serves as a proof of concept for titration of anti-IL-5 biologics in patients with severe asthma with clinical control on treatment, and the OPTIMAL algorithm provides a potential framework for individualising dosing intervals in the future., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.B. Soendergaard reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from GSK and AstraZeneca, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AstraZeneca. A-S. Bjerrum reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from GSK and AstraZeneca. L.M. Rasmussen reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GSK, Teva and ALK, support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AstraZeneca, GSK, Teva and Sanofi. A. von Bulow reports consultancy fees from Novartis, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Novartis and GSK, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AstraZeneca and Novartis. C. Porsbjerg reports grants paid to their institution from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, consultancy fees (paid both to institution and as personal honoraria) from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events (paid both to institution and as personal honoraria) from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board (fees paid both to institution and as personal honoraria) with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi and ALK. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key clinical feature of asthma. The presence of AHR in people with asthma provides the substrate for bronchoconstriction in response to numerous diverse stimuli, contributing to airflow limitation and symptoms including breathlessness, wheeze, and chest tightness. Dysfunctional airway smooth muscle significantly contributes to AHR and is displayed as increased sensitivity to direct pharmacologic bronchoconstrictor stimuli, such as inhaled histamine and methacholine (direct AHR), or to endogenous mediators released by activated airway cells such as mast cells (indirect AHR). Research in in vivo human models has shown that the disrupted airway epithelium plays an important role in driving inflammation that mediates indirect AHR in asthma through the release of cytokines such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin and IL-33. These cytokines upregulate type 2 cytokines promoting airway eosinophilia and induce the release of bronchoconstrictor mediators from mast cells such as histamine, prostaglandin D 2 , and cysteinyl leukotrienes. While bronchoconstriction is largely due to airway smooth muscle contraction, airway structural changes known as remodeling, likely mediated in part by epithelial-derived mediators, also lead to airflow obstruction and may enhance AHR. In this review, we outline the current knowledge of the role of the airway epithelium in AHR in asthma and its implications on the wider disease. Increased understanding of airway epithelial biology may contribute to better treatment options, particularly in precision medicine., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Asthma is a disease of heterogeneous pathology, typically characterised by excessive inflammatory and bronchoconstrictor responses to the environment. The clinical expression of the disease is a consequence of the interaction between environmental factors and host factors over time, including genetic susceptibility, immune dysregulation and airway remodelling. As a critical interface between the host and the environment, the airway epithelium plays an important role in maintaining homeostasis in the face of environmental challenges. Disruption of epithelial integrity is a key factor contributing to multiple processes underlying asthma pathology. In this review, we first discuss the unmet need in asthma management and provide an overview of the structure and function of the airway epithelium. We then focus on key pathophysiological changes that occur in the airway epithelium, including epithelial barrier disruption, immune hyperreactivity, remodelling, mucus hypersecretion and mucus plugging, highlighting how these processes manifest clinically and how they might be targeted by current and novel therapeutics., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R.J. Russell has received support for conference registration fees and expenses from Chiesi. L-P. Boulet has received grants and/or consultancy fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BioHaven, Cipla, Covis, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron and Teva Pharmaceuticals. C.E. Brightling has received grants and consultancy fees from 4D Pharma, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Genentech, GSK, Mologic, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche and Sanofi. I.D. Pavord has received speaker fees from Aerocrine AB, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi and Teva Pharmaceuticals, payments for organisation of educational events from AstraZeneca, GSK, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi and Teva Pharmaceuticals, consultancy fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Dey Pharma, Genentech, GSK, Knopp Biosciences, Merck, MSD, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, RespiVert, Sanofi, Schering-Plough and Teva Pharmaceuticals, international scientific meeting sponsorship from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a research grant from Chiesi. C. Porsbjerg has received grants and consultancy fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi and Teva Pharmaceuticals. D. Dorscheid has received grants and clinical trial support from AstraZeneca, British Columbia Lung Association, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and speaking and consultancy fees, travel grants, unrestricted project grants and writing fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis Canada, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi and Valeo Pharma. A. Sverrild has received grants and consultancy fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK and Sanofi., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

In the last 30 years, the treatment of obstructive lung diseases, such as asthma and COPD, has seen significant advancements. Introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and, more recently, biological treatments has revolutionized care. Biological treatments are very successful in severe asthma and are expected to be approved for COPD soon. Systematic assessment and multidimensional treatment approaches are crucial in both conditions. Future care may involve specialized centres for severe obstructive lung diseases, focusing on personalized approaches and monitoring, as argued in this review., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Background: Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is released from the airway epithelium in response to various environmental triggers, inducing a type-2 inflammatory response, and is associated with airway inflammation, airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), and exacerbations. TSLP may also induce AHR via a direct effect on airway smooth muscle and mast cells, independently of type-2 inflammation, although association between airway TSLP and AHR across asthma phenotypes has been described sparsely., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the association between AHR and levels of TSLP in serum, sputum, and bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with asthma with and without type-2 inflammation., Methods: A novel ultrasensitive assay was used to measure levels of TSLP in patients with asthma (serum, n = 182; sputum, n = 81; bronchoalveolar lavage, n = 85) and healthy controls (serum, n = 47). The distribution and association among airway and systemic TSLP, measures of AHR, type-2 inflammation, and severity of disease were assessed., Results: TSLP in sputum was associated with AHR independently of levels of eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (ρ = 0.49, P = .005). Serum TSLP was higher in both eosinophil-high and eosinophil-low asthma compared to healthy controls: geometric mean: 1600 fg/mL (95% CI: 1468-1744 fg/mL) and 1294 fg/mL (95% CI: 1167-1435 fg/mL) versus 846 fg/mL (95% CI: 661-1082 fg/mL), but did not correlate with the level of AHR. Increasing age, male sex, and eosinophils in blood were associated with higher levels of TSLP in serum, whereas lung function, inhaled corticosteroid dose, and symptom score were not., Conclusions: The association between TSLP in sputum and AHR to mannitol irrespective of markers of type-2 inflammation further supports a role of TSLP in AHR that is partially independent of eosinophilic inflammation., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Respiratory virus infections are main triggers of asthma exacerbations. Tezepelumab, an anti-TSLP mAb, reduces exacerbations in patients with asthma, but the effect of blocking TSLP on host epithelial resistance and tolerance to virus infection is not known., Aim: To examine effects of blocking TSLP in patients with asthma on host resistance (IFNβ, IFNλ, and viral load) and on the airway epithelial inflammatory response to viral challenge., Methods: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF, n = 39) and bronchial epithelial cells (BECs) were obtained from patients with uncontrolled asthma before and after 12 weeks of tezepelumab treatment (n = 13) or placebo (n = 13). BECs were cultured in vitro and exposed to the viral infection mimic poly(I:C) or infected by rhinovirus (RV). Alarmins, T2- and pro-inflammatory cytokines, IFNβ IFNλ, and viral load were analyzed by RT-qPCR and multiplex ELISA before and after stimulation., Results: IL-33 expression in unstimulated BECs and IL-33 protein levels in BALF were reduced after 12 weeks of tezepelumab. Further, IL-33 gene and protein levels decreased in BECs challenged with poly(I:C) after tezepelumab whereas TSLP gene expression remained unaffected. Poly(I:C)-induced IL-4, IL-13, and IL-17A release from BECs was also reduced with tezepelumab whereas IFNβ and IFNλ expression and viral load were unchanged., Conclusion: Blocking TSLP with tezepelumab in vivo in asthma reduced the airway epithelial inflammatory response including IL-33 and T2 cytokines to viral challenge without affecting anti-viral host resistance. Our results suggest that blocking TSLP stabilizes the bronchial epithelial immune response to respiratory viruses., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV 1 % predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P  < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P  < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV 1 % predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P  = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Background: The development of novel targeted biologic therapies for severe asthma has provided an opportunity to consider remission as a new treatment goal., Research Question: How many patients with severe asthma treated with biologic therapy achieve clinical remission, and what predicts response to treatment?, Study Design and Methods: The Danish Severe Asthma Register is a nationwide cohort including all adult patients receiving biologic therapy for severe asthma in Denmark. This observational cohort study defined "clinical response" to treatment following 12 months as a ≥ 50% reduction in exacerbations and/or a ≥ 50% reduction in maintenance oral corticosteroid dose, if required. "Clinical remission" was defined by cessation of exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroids, as well as a normalization of lung function (FEV 1 > 80%) and a six-question Asthma Control Questionnaire score ≤ 1.5 following 12 months of treatment., Results: Following 12 months of treatment, 104 (21%) of 501 biologic-naive patients had no response to treatment, and 397 (79%) had a clinical response. Among the latter, 97 (24%) fulfilled the study criteria of clinical remission, corresponding to 19% of the entire population. Remission was predicted by shorter duration of disease and lower BMI in the entire population of patients treated with biologic therapy., Interpretation: Clinical response was achieved in most adult patients initiating biologic therapy, and clinical remission was observed in 19% of the patients following 12 months of treatment. Further studies are required to assess the long-term outcome of achieving clinical remission with biologic therapy., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: S. H. reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca; M. B. S. reports speaker fees from GSK; A. v. B. reports consulting fees from Novartis, speaker fees from Novartis, GSK, and AstraZeneca, travel grants from AstraZeneca, and participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca and Novartis; A.-S. B. reports lecture fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; L. M. R. has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva, support for attending meetings and/or travel received from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva; K. E. J. H. reports grants from SanofiGenzyme and AstraZeneca, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, TEVA, and SanofiGenzyme; O. H. reports support attending meetings from Sanofi, and participation in advisory boards with GSK, MSD, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, TEVA, and ALK; C. U. reports grants from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, consulting fees from Chiesi, Orion Pharma, AstraZeneca, GSK, Teva, Menarini, and Takeda, lecture fees from Orion Pharma, AstraZeneca, and TEVA, and participation in advisory boards with Novartis, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi, Chiesi, and Boehringer Ingelheim; C. P. reports grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, and ALK. None declared (J. S., C. R. J., T. I., S. L. J., M. B., K. D. A.)., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management., Objective: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female)., Results: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes., Conclusion: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Scelo and Dr Murray are consultants for the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees, grants, or fees for serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Tran, Dr Menzies-Gow, and Dr Martin are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Hew reports receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus for unrelated projects. Dr Peters reports receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Gibson has received speaking fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Popov reports receiving relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Côté reports receiving speaking fees and consultant fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and reports receiving unrestricted grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr Bergeron reports advisory board participation in Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and ValeoPharma and honorarium for presentations for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Grifols, Sanofi, Regeneron, and ValeoPharma. Dr Dorscheid is on faculty at the University of British Columbia and is supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, British Columbia Lung Association, and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. In addition, he has received speaking fees, travel grants, unrestricted project grants, and writing fees and is a paid consultant for Sanofi-Regeneron, Novartis Canada, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and is an active member of the Canadian Thoracic Society, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, and the Allergen Research Network. Dr FitzGerald previously reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Chapman reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bellus, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vertex and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda; he has a leadership or fiduciary role in Alpha-1 Canada, the Canadian Thoracic Society, and Alpha-1 Foundation. Dr Boulet has received grants for participation in clinical studies from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and BioHaven; for consulting and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr Bhutani has received speaker and consultant fees for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Covis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Valeo. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Jiménez-Maldonado has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Duran-Silva has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Solarte received fees from GlaxoSmithKline for participation on advisory boards. Dr Fernandez-Sanchez is a part-time employee of GlaxoSmithKline and does not hold shares in the company. Dr Bülow reports receiving speakers fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis outside the submitted work and has also attended the advisory board for Novartis and AstraZeneca. Dr Bjerrum has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and participation in advisory boards, among others, from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Rasmussen declares receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, ALK, and Mundipharma outside the submitted work and attended advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and consultancies with AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Taille has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, and Novartis for unrelated projects. Dr Charriot reports receiving advisory board and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi; consulting fees for Chiesi; and serving as a trial coinvestigator for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Roche reports receiving grants and personal fees from Austral, Biosency, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer and personal fees from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Sanofi, Menarini, and Zambon. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Kostikas received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, GILEAD, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, and WebMD; and received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, and NuvoAir (paid to the University of Ioannina). Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Salvi reports receiving research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Mitchell has received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, and Novartis and has received grants from AstraZeneca and Teva. Dr Costello has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva; is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen; and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence, and prediction of exacerbations. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Puggioni reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Mona Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). Dr Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, and Carnot and grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Garcia Ramirez received fees as a speaker and advisory board participant from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Genzyme, Chiesi, and Novartis. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from or has research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis and has received personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Kook Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr de Llano reports receiving grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Teva, Faes, and Sanofi; personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi; personal fees from MSD, Techdow Pharma, GILEAD, and Leo Pharma; and grants and personal fees from GEBRO outside the submitted work. Dr Perng received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Tsai has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Orient EuroPharma. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline, for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Goddard reports receiving lecture fees from Sanofi. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; and has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Hoyte reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech and has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Teva, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, resTORbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound biologic, Incyte, and Kinaset. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care (OPC) (OPC is a cofounder of the International Severe Asthma Registry and a cofounder of the APEX-COPD initiative). Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of OPRI. Ms Eleangovan and Mr Ariti were employees of OPRI. Dr Lyu was an employee of OPC. Dr Price has advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance; received grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, and the UK National Health Service; received payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Thermofisher; funding for patient enrollment or completion of research from Novartis; has stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise OPC Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); has 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation program and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized trials of biologics in severe, uncontrolled asthma have excluded patients with a cumulative tobacco exposure of more than 10 pack-years. Therefore, our knowledge of the impact of smoking exposure on the clinical effects of biologics in severe asthma remains incomplete. However, because many patients with asthma are current or former smokers, investigating the potential impacts of tobacco exposure on the effects of biologic treatment is clinically important., Objective: To investigate the impact of smoking history and tobacco exposure on the effectiveness of biologic therapy in real-life patients with severe asthma., Methods: We used data from a complete nationwide cohort of patients with severe asthma who were receiving biologics, the Danish Severe Asthma Register. We divided patients according to smoking history and cumulative tobacco exposure and analyzed data at baseline and after 12 months of biologic treatment., Results: A total of 724 bio-naive patients were identified in the Danish Severe Asthma Register, 398 of whom had never been smokers (55%), 316 were previous smokers (44%), and 10 were current smokers (1%). Within the group of current and former smokers, 37% had 1 to 9 pack-years of tobacco exposure, 26% had 10 to 19 pack-years, and 37% had 20 or more pack-years of tobacco exposure. Patients with tobacco exposure had similar reductions in the number of exacerbations, reductions in maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and improvements in asthma symptoms compared with patients with 0 pack-years., Conclusion: Former smoking history and lifetime tobacco exposure do not have an impact on the efficacy of biologics in patients with severe asthma., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND: Mucus plugs in asthmatic airways are associated with airway obstruction and the activity of inflammatory cytokines, specifically interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-13, and they may provide an opportunity for targeted therapy. This analysis of the CASCADE (Study to Evaluate Tezepelumab on Airway Inflammation in Adults With Uncontrolled Asthma) placebo-controlled trial used computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess mucus plugs in patients with moderate-to-severe, uncontrolled asthma who received tezepelumab or placebo. METHODS: CASCADE was an exploratory, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining the anti-inflammatory effect of tezepelumab. Patients (aged 18 to 75 years old) were randomly assigned 1:1 to 210 mg tezepelumab or placebo every 4 weeks subcutaneously for at least 28 weeks. An expert radiologist, blinded to treatment groups and time points, objectively scored 18 lung segments for the presence of mucus plugs in CT scans obtained before and after treatment; greater numbers of mucus plugs resulted in higher mucus plug scores. RESULTS: Absolute change from baseline (mean [±standard deviation]) in mucus plug score was −1.7±2.6 in patients receiving tezepelumab (n=37) and 0.0±1.4 in patients receiving placebo (n=45). At baseline, mucus plug scores correlated positively with levels of inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophils, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, IL-5, and IL-13) and negatively with lung function measures (prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced mid-expiratory flow). In tezepelumab recipients, reductions in mucus plug scores were correlated with improvements in lung function and reductions in blood eosinophil count and levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin, a biomarker of eosinophilic degranulation. CONCLUSIONS: Tezepelumab was associated with a reduction in occlusive mucus plugs versus placebo in a randomized controlled trial in patients with moderate-to-severe, uncontrolled asthma. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Amgen Inc.; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03688074.)

Background: There is limited evidence on the pathways leading to severe asthma and we are presently unable to effectively predict the progression of the disease. We aimed to describe the longitudinal trajectories leading to severe asthma and to describe clinical events preceding disease progression in a nationwide population of patients with severe asthma., Methods: We conducted an observational study based on Swedish data from the NORdic Dataset for aSThmA Research (NORDSTAR) research collaboration platform. We identified adult patients with severe asthma in 2018 according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society definition and used latent class analysis to identify trajectories of asthma severity over a 10-year retrospective period from 2018., Results: Among 169 128 asthma patients, we identified 4543 severe asthma patients. We identified four trajectories of severe asthma that were labelled as: trajectory 1 "consistently severe asthma" (n=389 (8.6%)), trajectory 2 "gradual onset severe asthma" (n=942 (20.7%)), trajectory 3 "intermittent severe asthma" (n=1685 (37.1%)) and trajectory 4 "sudden onset severe asthma" (n=1527 (33.6%)). "Consistently severe asthma" had a higher daily inhaled corticosteroid dose and more prevalent osteoporosis compared with the other trajectories. Patients with "gradual onset severe asthma" and "sudden onset severe asthma" developed type 2-related comorbidities concomitantly with development of severe asthma. In the latter group, this primarily occurred within 1-3 years preceding onset of severe asthma., Conclusions: Four distinct trajectories of severe asthma were identified illustrating different patterns of progression of asthma severity. This may eventually enable the development of better preventive management strategies in severe asthma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A. von Bülow reports consulting fees from Novartis, speaker fees from Novartis, GSK and AstraZeneca, travel grants from AstraZeneca, and participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca and Novartis. S. Hansen reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca. P. Sandin reports no conflicts of interest. O. Ernstsson reports no conflicts of interest. C. Janson reports no conflicts of interest. L. Lehtimäki reports fees for lectures, consultations or advisory board meetings from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion and Sanofi. H. Kankaanranta reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, MSD, Orion Pharma, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme, and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Orion Pharma and Boehringer Ingelheim. C. Ulrik reports grants from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Novartis, consulting fees from Chiesi, Orion Pharma, Menarini, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Teva and GSK, lecture fees from Orion, Pharma, AstraZeneca and Teva, and participation in advisory boards with Novartis, GSK, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Chiesi and Boehringer Ingelheim. B.B. Aarli reports grants from Novartis, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, lecture fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim, and participation in advisory boards with GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi Pharma, Novartis and Sanofi. K. Geale is a board member of Quantify Research AB, Quantify Research ApS, Quantify Research AS and Quantify HEOR Private Limited, is CEO of Quantify Research AB, Quantify Research ApS and Quantify Research AS, and has stock and stock options in Quantify Research AB. S.T. Tang is an employee at Sanofi and holds stocks in Sanofi. M. Wolf is an employee at Novartis Finland. V. Backer reports no conflicts of interest. O. Hilberg reports consulting fees from Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, GSK, ALK, MSD and Teva, and travel grants from Sanofi. A. Altraja reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK and Sanofi, speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Norameda (Chiesi), GSK, Sanofi and Zentiva, expert testimony for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK and Sanofi, travel grants from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim and Norameda (Chiesi), participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK and Sanofi, and receipt of equipment from Berlin-Chemie Menarini. H. Backman reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and GSK. D. Lúdvíksdóttir reports speaker fees from GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim. U.S. Björnsdóttir reports speaker fees from Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Novartis, support for travel from Sanofi, and participation in advisory boards with Sanofi. P. Kauppi reports consulting fees from Sobi, speaker fees from GSK and AstraZeneca, and fee for PI for Theravance. T. Sandström reports no conflicts of interest. A. Sverrild reports grants from AstraZeneca, and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Sanofi-Genzyme and Novartis. V. Yasinska reports lecture fees from GSK and Sanofi, and participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca and GSK. M. Kilpeläinen reports no conflicts of interest. B. Dahlén reports grants from GSK and Novartis. A. Viinanen reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, speaker fees from GSK and Chiesi, and travel grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. L. Bjermer reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Airsonette, Birc, Chiesi, Novartis and Sanofi, and participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Birc and Sanofi. A. Bossios reports speaker fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Teva and Novartis, travel grants from AstraZeneca and Novartis, participation in advisory boards with GSK, AstraZeneca, Teva, Novartis and Sanofi, is a member of the steering committee of SHARP, Secretary of Assembly 5 (Airway diseases, asthma, COPD and chronic cough) of the European Respiratory Society and is the vice-president of the Nordic Severe Asthma Network. C. Porsbjerg reports grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, and participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi and ALK., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: Airway hyperresponsiveness is a hallmark of asthma across asthma phenotypes. Airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol specifically relates to mast cell infiltration of the airways, suggesting inhaled corticosteroids to be effective in reducing the response to mannitol, despite low levels of type 2 inflammation., Objective: We sought to investigate the relationship between airway hyperresponsiveness and infiltrating mast cells, and the response to inhaled corticosteroid treatment., Methods: In 50 corticosteroid-free patients with airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol, mucosal cryobiopsies were obtained before and after 6 weeks of daily treatment with 1600 μg of budesonide. Patients were stratified according to baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide (Feno) with a cutoff of 25 parts per billion., Results: Airway hyperresponsiveness was comparable at baseline and improved equally with treatment in both patients with Feno-high and Feno-low asthma: doubling dose, 3.98 (95% CI, 2.49-6.38; P < .001) and 3.85 (95% CI, 2.51-5.91; P < .001), respectively. However, phenotypes and distribution of mast cells differed between the 2 groups. In patients with Feno-high asthma, airway hyperresponsiveness correlated with the density of chymase-high mast cells infiltrating the epithelial layer (ρ, -0.42; P = .04), and in those with Feno-low asthma, it correlated with the density in the airway smooth muscle (ρ, -0.51; P = .02). The improvement in airway hyperresponsiveness after inhaled corticosteroid treatment correlated with a reduction in mast cells, as well as in airway thymic stromal lymphopoietin and IL-33., Conclusions: Airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol is related to mast cell infiltration across asthma phenotypes, correlating with epithelial mast cells in patients with Feno-high asthma and with airway smooth muscle mast cells in patients with Feno-low asthma. Treatment with inhaled corticosteroids was effective in reducing airway hyperresponsiveness in both groups., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Allergic asthma is linked to impaired bronchial epithelial secretion of IFNs, which may be causally linked to the increased risk of viral exacerbations. We have previously shown that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) effectively reduces asthma exacerbations and prevents respiratory infections requiring antibiotics; however, whether AIT alters antiviral immunity is still unknown. Objectives: To investigate the effect of house dust mite sublingual AIT (HDM-SLIT) on bronchial epithelial antiviral and inflammatory responses in patients with allergic asthma. Methods: In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial (VITAL [The Effect of Allergen Immunotherapy on Anti-viral Immunity in Patients with Allergic Asthma]), adult patients with HDM allergic asthma received HDM-SLIT 12-SQ or placebo for 24 weeks. Bronchoscopy was performed at baseline and at Week 24, which included sampling for human bronchial epithelial cells. Human bronchial epithelial cells were cultured at baseline and at Week 24 and stimulated with the viral mimic polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly(I:C)). mRNA expression was quantified using qRT-PCR, and protein concentrations were measured using multiplex ELISA. Measurements and Main Results: Thirty-nine patients were randomized to HDM-SLIT ( n  = 20) or placebo ( n  = 19). HDM-SLIT resulted in increased polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid-induced expression of IFN-β at both the gene ( P  = 0.009) and protein ( P  = 0.02) levels. IFN-λ gene expression was also increased ( P  = 0.03), whereas IL-33 tended to be decreased ( P  = 0.09). On the other hand, proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 ( P  = 0.009) and TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α) ( P  = 0.08) increased compared with baseline in the HDM-SLIT group. There were no significant changes in TSLP (thymic stromal lymphopoietin), IL-4, IL-13, and IL-10. Conclusions: HDM-SLIT improves bronchial epithelial antiviral resistance to viral infection. These results potentially explain the efficacy of HDM-SLIT in reducing exacerbations in allergic asthma. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04100902).

Background: Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) Working Group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies., Methods: COMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives, and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients' and carers' views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria., Results: Both adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) as z-scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test or Childhood Asthma Control Test, while the adult COM set includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately)., Conclusions: This patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E. Khaleva and A. Rattu declare funding from 3TR European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 to their institution for the present manuscript. C. Brightling declares grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Mologic and 4DPharma; consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Mologic, 4DPharma and Teva; and support from the 3TR project. G.W. Clarke declares that he is an employee of AstraZeneca; and that he holds stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. M. van den Berge declares grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Roche, Genentech and Novartis paid to the university. A. Bossios declares honoraria for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva and Novartis; support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca and Novartis; honoraria for advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Novartis and Sanofi; being a member of the Steering Committee of SHARP, Secretary of Assembly 5 (Airway Diseases, Asthma, COPD and Chronic Cough) of the European Respiratory Society; Vice-chair of the Nordic Severe Asthma Network (NSAN). V. Ramiconi and S. Romagosa Vilarnau declare unrestricted educational grants paid to the organisation from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, LeoPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Regeneron, OM Pharma, MSD, Roche and DBV Technologies; support for attending meetings from Novartis. S-E. Dahlén declares a 3TR Innovative Medicines Initiative grant; consulting fees for AstraZeneca, Cayman Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi and Teva; payment for lectures from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. S. Principe declares support for provision of study materials and medical writing. G. Hedlin declares participation in advisory boards of AstraZeneca and Sanofi. F. Singer reports grants from Lung League Bern, grants from the Swiss Cystic Fibrosis Society (CFCH), personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. A. Deschildre reports personal consulting fees from Sanofi-Regeneron, ALK, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline; honoraria for lectures from ALK, Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis; support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Stallergènes-Greer, MEDA, Nutricia, Sanofi and Novartis, outside the submitted work; and being on the scientific committee of SFA (Société Française d'Allergologie). L.J. Fleming declares participation in advisory boards and honoraria for lectures from Sanofi, Respiri UK, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Teva, outside of the scope of this publication; all payments were made to her institution. H. Staudinger reports that he is a salaried employee of Sanofi Genzyme and owns company stock of Sanofi and Merck & Co. K.C. Pike declares consultancy fees from Novartis, Adherium and Respiri, and honoraria for a lecture from Novartis. J. Grigg declares payments from GlaxoSmithKline, OM Pharma, Omron and Novartis (advisory boards), Sanofi (for lectures) and AstraZeneca (CI clinical trial). N. Rutjes reports personal fees for advisory board work from Sanofi. G.H. Koppelman reports receiving research grants from the Lung Foundation of the Netherlands, Ubbo Emmius Foundation, H2020 European Union, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline and Vertex, outside this work (money to institution); he reports memberships of advisory boards to GlaxoSmithKline and PURE-IMS, outside this work (money to institution). D. Cunoosamy holds shares in AstraZeneca and Sanofi. A.H. Maitland-van der Zee has received research grants outside the submitted work from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and Vertex, she is the PI of a P4O2 (Precision Medicine for more Oxygen) public private partnership sponsored by Health Holland involving many private partners that contribute in cash and/or in kind (Boehringer Ingelheim, Breathomix, Fluidda, Ortec Logiqcare, Philips, Quantib-U, Roche, Smartfish, SODAQ, Thirona, TopMD and Novartis), and she has served in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim with money paid to her institution. K.F. Chung has received honoraria for participating in advisory board meetings of GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Merck and Shionogi, regarding treatments for asthma, COPD and chronic cough, and has also been remunerated for speaking engagements for Novartis and AstraZeneca; received a MRC grant on Precision Medicine for severe asthma, EPSRC grant on air pollution and asthma, and a GlaxoSmithKline grant on mepolizumab and eosinophils in asthma. P. Nagakumar received speaker fees for talks on severe asthma from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. G. Brusselle declares payments from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and MSD, outside the submitted work. E. Hamelmann declares support from the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and German Asthma Net (GAN) eV; funding for research in severe asthma in children (CHAMP-01GL1742D) and for Severe Asthma Register. S. Vijverberg is PI of the PERMEABLE consortium. The PERMEABLE consortium is a research consortium focused on severe asthma and allergy and supported by ZonMW (456008004), the Swedish Research Council (2018-05619), the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia (C3330-19-252012), and the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) FKZ01KU1909A), under the frame of the ERA PerMed JTC 2018 Call. In addition, S. Vijverberg has received research funding for a project on severe paediatric asthma from the Lung Foundation Netherlands (6.2.18.244JO). A-M.M. Schoos has participated on an advisory board for ALK. B. Dahlén reports personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Sanofi; and grants from Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; participation on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and Sanofi. A. Exley declares being a minority shareholder in GlaxoSmithKline Plc. E.A. Gaillard reports consultancy work for Boehringer Ingelheim with money paid to the institution (University of Leicester); investigator-led research grants from Circassia Group, Gilead Sciences, Chiesi Limited and Propeller Health; and has a research collaboration with Medimmune. M. Pijnenburg declares payments to her institution from Sanofi Genzyme (advisory work) and Novartis (speakers fee). E. Melén declares consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. R. Chaudhuri has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Chiesi, Sanofi and Novartis; honoraria for advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Chiesi and Novartis; sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Chiesi, Napp, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, and a research grant to her institute from AstraZeneca for a UK multi-centre study. C. Pilette declares grants, consulting fees and honoraria for lectures (paid to institution) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Mundipharma, Teva, Sanofi and ALK. C. Porsbjerg declares grants (paid to institution), consulting fees (paid to institution and personal honoraria) and honoraria for lectures (paid to institution and personal honoraria) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK; participation on an advisory board (paid to institution and personal honoraria) for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi and ALK. C. Coleman and C. Williams declare funding received to support this work by the European Lung Foundation (ELF) from the European Commission's Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement number 831434 (3TR), and are employees of the ELF. B. Ahrens, S. Kaul, D. Hartenstein and V. Mahler declare no conflict of interest for this article and state that the views expressed in this review are the personal views of the author and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the respective national competent authorities, the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties. L.G. Heaney declares support from the 3TR; grants from industrial pharma partners Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Janssen, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim; project grant funding from Medimmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; payments for lectures by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Teva, outside the submitted work; travel funding support to international respiratory meetings by AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, Teva, Theravance and Vectura, outside the submitted work. R. Djukanovic declares funding from the European Respiratory Society, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi and Chiesi for the SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration; consulting fees for Synairgen; honorarium for a lecture from GlaxoSmithKline; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Kymab (Cambridge) and shares in Synairgen outside of the submitted work. A. Bourdin declares grants from Boehringer and AstraZeneca; consulting fees and payments from Boehringer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Chiesi, Regeneron, Sanofi and Amgen outside of the submitted work. B. Karadag declares participation in a trial conducted by Sanofi (payment to institution) and attending advisory board meetings for GlaxoSmithKline (personal fees). K. Blumchen declares grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies and Hipp GmbH; consulting fees from Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies and Allergy Therapeutics; payments for lectures from Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Novartis, Allergy Therapeutics, HAL, ALK, Allergopharma, Nutricia, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Bausch and Lomb; personal fees for expert discussions from Novartis and Nestle; fees for attending meetings from Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies; being on data safety monitoring board of Charité, IIT. A. Gupta received speaker/advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, paid to institution. L. Giovannini-Chami declares consulting fees from ALK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; honoraria for lectures, presentations from Novartis, ALK, Stallergènes, Sanofi and AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings from Stallergènes; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sanofi; being head of the Scientific Committee of the French Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology Society. C.S. Murray has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; received grants from Asthma UK and National Institute for Health Research; and has participated on an advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim. G. Roberts declares European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative funding and AstraZeneca paid to the institution. Other co-authors declare no conflicts of interest for this article., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: Valid outcome measures are imperative to evaluate treatment response, yet the suitability of existing end-points for severe asthma is unclear. This review aimed to identify outcome measures for severe asthma and appraise the quality of their measurement properties., Methods: A literature search was performed to identify "candidate" outcome measures published between 2018 and 2020. A modified Delphi exercise was conducted to select "key" outcome measures within healthcare professional, patient, pharmaceutical and regulatory stakeholder groups. Initial validation studies for "key" measures were rated against modified quality criteria from COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The evidence was discussed at multi-stakeholder meetings to ratify "priority" outcome measures. Subsequently, four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to 20 July 2020 to identify development and validation studies for these end-points. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed their methodological quality and graded the evidence according to COSMIN., Results: 96 outcome measures were identified as "candidates", 55 as "key" and 24 as "priority" for severe asthma, including clinical, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, asthma control and composite. 32 studies reported measurement properties of 17 "priority" end-points from the latter three domains. Only the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Childhood Asthma Control Test were developed with input from severe asthma patients. The certainty of evidence was "low" to "very low" for most "priority" end-points across all measurement properties and none fulfilled all quality standards., Conclusions: Only two outcome measures had robust developmental data for severe asthma. This review informed development of core outcome measures sets for severe asthma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A. Rattu and E. Khaleva declare funding from the European Commission's Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement number 831434 (3TR) for this manuscript. C. Brightling declares grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Mologic and 4DPharma, consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Mologic, 4DPharma and Teva, and support from the 3TR project. S-E. Dahlén declares a 3TR IMI grant, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Cayman Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi and Teva, and payment for lectures from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. A. Bossios declares honoraria for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva and Novartis, support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca and Novartis, honoraria for advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Novartis and Sanofi, and being a member of the Steering Committee of SHARP, Secretary of Assembly 5 (Airway Diseases, Asthma, COPD and Chronic Cough) of the European Respiratory Society, and Vice-chair of the Nordic Severe Asthma Network (NSAN). L. Fleming declares participation in advisory boards and honoraria for lectures from Sanofi, Respiri UK, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Teva, outside the submitted work; all payments were made to her institution. K.F. Chung has received honoraria for participating in advisory board meetings of GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Merck and Shionogi regarding treatments for asthma, COPD and chronic cough, and has also been remunerated for speaking engagements for Novartis and AstraZeneca; has received an MRC grant on precision medicine for severe asthma, an EPSRC grant on air pollution and asthma, and a GlaxoSmithKline grant on mepolizumab and eosinophils in asthma. E. Melén declares consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. R. Chaudhuri has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Chiesi, Sanofi and Novartis, honoraria for advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Chiesi and Novartis, sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Chiesi, Napp, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, and a research grant to her institute from AstraZeneca for a UK multicentre study. R. Djukanovic declares funding from the European Respiratory Society, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi and Chiesi for the SHARP CRC, consulting fees for Synairgen, honorarium for a lecture from GlaxoSmithKline, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Kymab (Cambridge), and shares in Synairgen, outside the submitted work. A. Exley declares being a minority shareholder in GlaxoSmithKline PLC. G.H. Koppelman reports receiving research grants from the Lung Foundation of the Netherlands, Ubbo Emmius Foundation, H2020 European Union, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline and Vertex, outside this work (money to institution); he reports memberships of advisory boards to GlaxoSmithKline and PURE-IMS, outside this work (money to institution). A. Bourdin declares unrestricted grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim to his institute; consulting fees, honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, and support for attending meetings and travel from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Sanofi; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi and Abs science. C. Porsbjerg declares grants (paid to institution), consulting fees (paid to institution and personal honoraria) and honoraria for lectures (paid to institution and personal honoraria) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK; participation on an advisory board (paid to institution and personal honoraria) for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi and ALK. C. Coleman and C. Williams declare funding received to support this work by the European Lung Foundation (ELF) from the European Commission's Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement number 831434 (3TR), and are employees of the ELF. E. Davin bought and sold shares on the public market during 2021–2022 in Regeneron, Roche and ICON Plc, and declares no current holdings. P. Taverner declares honorarium for being a lay member of Asthma and Lung UK's research funding panel, and chairing a Patient and Community Oversight Group for two NIHR health protection research units on environmental and chemical hazards; and payment for chairing a NICE guideline committee on advocacy services. S. Romagosa Vilarnau declares unrestricted educational grants paid to the organisation from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, LeoPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Regeneron, OM Pharma, MSD, Roche and DBV Technologies. G. Roberts declares EU IMI funding and consulting fees from AstraZeneca paid to his institution. No other author has any conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright ©The authors 2023. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Asthma is one of the most common chronic non-communicable diseases worldwide and is characterised by variable airflow obstruction, causing dyspnoea and wheezing. Highly effective therapies are available; asthma morbidity and mortality have vastly improved in the past 15 years, and most patients can attain good asthma control. However, undertreatment is still common, and improving patient and health-care provider understanding of when and how to adjust treatment is crucial. Asthma management consists of a cycle of assessment of asthma control and risk factors and adjustment of medications accordingly. With the introduction of biological therapies, management of severe asthma has entered the precision medicine era-a shift that is driving clinical ambitions towards disease remission. Patients with severe asthma often have co-existing conditions contributing to their symptoms, mandating a multidimensional management approach. In this Seminar, we provide a clinically focused overview of asthma; epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management in children and adults., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CP declares research grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Chiesi Farmaceutici, and ALK-Abelló; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Chiesi Farmaceutici, and ALK-Abelló; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Chiesi Farmaceutici, and ALK-Abelló; and fees for being on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and ALK-Abelló. EM declares consulting fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Novartis, and Sanofi. EM is a member of the European Respiratory Society Environmental Health Committee. LL declares consulting fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia Group, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Orion, and Sanofi; honoraria for lectures from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia Group, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Orion, and Sanofi; and fees for being on the advisory board for ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia Group, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Orion, and Sanofi. LL owns shares of Ausculthing OY. DS declares consulting fees from GSK and Novartis; honoraria for lectures from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Chiesi; and travel fees from Chiesi., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergic asthma is associated with increased risk of respiratory tract infections and exacerbations. It remains unclear whether this susceptibility is conditioned by seasonal or by perennial allergy., Aim: To investigate perennial allergy compared with seasonal allergy as a risk factor for lower respiratory tract infections and exacerbations in asthma and whether this risk can be reduced by allergen immunotherapy (AIT)., Methodology: This is a prospective register-based nationwide study of 18-44-year-olds treated with AIT during 1995-2014. Based on the type of AIT and use of anti-asthmatic drugs, patients were subdivided into two groups: perennial allergic asthma (PAA) versus seasonal allergic asthma (SAA). Data on antibiotics against lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) and oral corticosteroids for exacerbations were analysed before starting AIT (baseline) and 3 years after completing AIT (follow-up)., Results: We identified 2688 patients with asthma treated with AIT, of whom 1249 had PAA and 1439 had SAA. At baseline, patients with SAA had more exacerbations (23.8% versus 16.5%, p≤0.001), but there were no differences in LRTI. During the 3-year follow-up, we observed a highly significant reduction of exacerbations with an average decrease of 57% in PAA and 74% in SAA. In addition, we observed a significant reduction of LRTI in both PAA and SAA: 17% and 20% decrease, respectively., Conclusion: AIT effectively reduced the risk of exacerbations and lower respiratory tract infections in both seasonal and perennial allergic asthma. Perennial allergy is seemingly not a stronger risk factor for respiratory infections and exacerbations than seasonal allergy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: C. Woehlk has received speaker fees from ALK Abelló Nordic A/s. M.B. Søndergaard reports speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline. A. Von Bülow has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, and has attended advisory boards for Novartis and AstraZeneca. C. Porsbjerg reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chesi and ALK Abelló A/s paid to institution; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chesi and ALK Abelló A/s; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chesi and ALK Abelló A/s; advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, and ALK Abelló A/s. M. Ghanizada and S. Hansen report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright ©The authors 2022. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Introduction: Severe eosinophilic asthma is characterised by frequent exacerbations and a relative insensitivity to steroids. Experimentally, smoking may induce eosinophilic airway inflammation, but the impact in patients with severe asthma is not clear., Objective: To investigate the association between smoking exposure in patients with severe asthma, and eosinophilic inflammation and activation, as well as airway autoimmunity and steroid responsiveness., Methods: Patients with severe asthma according to European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria were assessed with sputum samples, analysed by cell differential count, and for the presence of free eosinophil granules (FEGs), autoantibodies against eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) and macrophage receptor with collagenous structure (MARCO). A subgroup of patients with eosinophilic airway inflammation was re-assessed after a 2-week course of prednisolone., Results: 132 severe asthmatics were included in the study. 39 (29.5%) patients had ≥10 pack-years of smoking history: 36 (27.3%) were former smokers and three (2.3%) current smokers; and 93 (70.5%) had <10 pack-years exposure. Eosinophilic airway inflammation was more prevalent among patients with ≥10 pack-years (66.7%), compared to patients with <10 pack-years (38.7%, p=0.03), as was the level of FEGs (p=0.001) and both anti-EPX and anti-MARCO (p<0.05 and p<0.0001, respectively). Omitting current smokers did not affect these associations. Furthermore, prednisolone reduced, but did not normalise, sputum eosinophils in patients with a ≥10 pack-year smoking history., Conclusion: In patients with severe asthma, a former smoking history is associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation and activation and relative insensitivity to steroids, as well as airway autoimmunity., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D.K. Klein declares no competing interests. A. Silberbrandt declares no competing interests. L. Frøssing declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from GlaxoSmithKline, in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission. M. Hvidtfeldt declares no competing interests. A. von Bülow declares grants from Novartis Healthcare, Denmark; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission. P. Nair reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Teva, grants from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Equillium, grants from Foresee, outside the submitted work. M. Mukherjee reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, grants from Methapharm Specialty Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. C. Porsbjerg declares grants, consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission., (Copyright ©The authors 2022. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Rationale: Moderate to severe asthma is associated with impaired asthma control and quality of life (QoL) despite access to specialist care and modern pharmacotherapy. Breathing exercises (BrEX) improve QoL in incompletely controlled mild asthma, but impact in moderate to severe asthma is unknown. Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of BrEX as adjuvant treatment on QoL in patients with uncontrolled moderate to severe asthma. Methods: Adult patients with incompletely controlled asthma attending respiratory specialist clinics were randomized to usual specialist care (UC) or UC and BrEX (UC + BrEX) with three individual physiotherapist-delivered sessions and home exercises. Primary outcome was asthma-related QoL (Mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [Mini-AQLQ]) at 6 months on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes: Mini-AQLQ at 12 months, lung function, 6-minute-walk test, physical activity level, Nijmegen Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and adverse events. Repeated-measures mixed-effects models were used to analyze data. Poisson regression models were used to analyze adverse event incidence rate ratio. Results: A total of 193 participants were allocated to UC + BrEX ( n  = 94) or UC ( n  = 99). UC + BrEX was superior in the primary outcome (adjusted mean change difference, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.62). Superiority in Mini-AQLQ was sustained at 12 months (0.38; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.65). A minor improvement in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression score at 6 months favoring UC + BrEX (-0.90; 95% CI, -1.67 to -0.14) was observed. Asthma-related adverse events occurred similarly in UC + BrEX and UC participants: 14.9% versus 18.1% ( P  = 0.38). Conclusions: BrEX as add-on to usual care improve asthma-related QoL in incompletely controlled asthma regardless of severity and with no evidence of harm. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03127059).

Introduction: Allergen exposure worsens viral-triggered asthma exacerbations and could predispose the host to secondary bacterial infections. We have previously demonstrated that exposure to house dust mite (HDM) reduced TLR-3-induced IFN-β in human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs) from healthy donors. We hypothesize that HDM sensitization in different ways may be involved in both viral and bacterial resistance of HBECs in asthma. In this study, the role of HDM sensitization and effects of HDM exposure on viral stimulus-challenged HBECs from asthmatic donors have been explored with regard to expression and release of molecules involved in anti-viral and anti-bacterial responses, respectively., Methods: HBECs from HDM-sensitized (HDM+) and unsensitized (HDM-) patients with asthma were used. HBECs were exposed to HDM or heat inactivated (hi)-HDM (20 μg/ml) for 24 h prior to stimulation with the viral infection mimic, Poly(I:C), for 3 or 24 h. Samples were analyzed with ELISA and RT-qPCR for β-defensin-2, IFN-β, TSLP, and neutrophil-recruiting mediators: IL-8 and TNF-⍺. NFκB signaling proteins p105, p65, and IκB-⍺ were analyzed by Western blot., Results: Poly(I:C)-induced IFN-β expression was reduced in HBECs from HDM + compared to HDM- patients (p = 0.05). In vitro exposure of HBECs to HDM furthermore reduced anti-microbial responses to Poly(I:C) including β-defensin-2, IL-8, and TNF-⍺, along with reduced NFκB activity. This was observed in HBECs from asthma patients sensitized to HDM, as well as in non-sensitized patients. By contrast, Poly (I:C)-induced release of TSLP, a driver of T2 inflammation, was not reduced with exposure to HDM., Conclusion: Using HBECs challenged with viral infection mimic, Poly(I:C), we demonstrated that allergic sensitization to HDM was associated with impaired anti-viral immunity and that HDM exposure reduced anti-viral and anti-bacterial defense molecules, but not TSLP, across non-allergic as well as allergic asthma. These data suggest a role of HDM in the pathogenesis of asthma exacerbations evoked by viral infections including sequential viral-bacterial and viral-viral infections., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Asthma is characterised by an aggravated immune response to respiratory viral infections. This phenomenon is a clinically well-recognised driver of acute exacerbations, but how different phenotypes of asthma respond immunologically to viruses is unclear., Objectives: To describe the association between different phenotypes and severity of asthma and bronchial epithelial immune responses to viral stimulation., Methods: In the Immunoreact study, healthy subjects (n=10) and 50 patients with asthma were included; 30 (60%) were atopic, and 34 (68%) were eosinophilic; 14 (28%) had severe asthma. All participants underwent bronchoscopy with collection of bronchial brushings. Bronchial epithelial cells (BECs) were expanded and stimulated with the viral replication mimic poly (I:C) (Toll-like receptor (TLR)3 agonist) in vitro . The expression of TLR3-induced pro-inflammatory and antiviral responses of BECs were analysed using reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR and multiplex ELISA and compared across asthma phenotypes and severity of disease., Results: Patients with atopic asthma had increased induction of interleukin (IL)-4, interferon (IFN)-β, IL-6, tumour necrosis factor-α, and IL-1β after poly (I:C) stimulation compared to non-atopic patients, whereas in patients with eosinophilic asthma only IL-6 and IL-8 induction was higher than in non-eosinophilic asthma. Patients with severe asthma displayed a decreased antiviral IFN-β, and increased expression of IL-8, most pronounced in atopic and eosinophilic asthmatics. Furthermore, induction of IL-33 in response to poly (I:C) was increased in severe atopic and in severe eosinophilic asthma, but thymic stromal lymphopoietin only in severe eosinophilic asthma., Conclusions: The bronchial epithelial immune response to a viral mimic stimulation differs between asthma phenotypes and severities, which may be important to consider when targeting novel asthma treatments., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors declare no potential conflicts of interest in relation to the present study. C. Porsbjerg declares having received honoraria as a speaker and consultant, and unrestricted research grants from AZ, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, TEVA, Chiesi and Pharmaxis. A. Sverrild declares having received honoraria as a speaker and consultant, and unrestricted research grants from AZ, Novartis, Sanofi and Chiesi., (Copyright ©The authors 2022. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Introduction: Cell differential count (CDC) of induced sputum is considered the gold standard for inflammatory phenotyping of asthma but is not implemented in routine care due to its heavy time- and staff demands. Digital Cell Morphology is a technique where digital images of cells are captured and presented preclassified as white blood cells (neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, and unidentified) and nonwhite blood cells for review. With this study, we wanted to assess the accuracy of an automated CDC in identifying the key inflammatory cells in induced sputum., Methods: Sputum from 50 patients with asthma was collected and processed using the standard processing protocol with one drop 20% albumin added to hinder cell smudging. Each slide was counted automatically using the CellaVision DM96 and manually by an experienced lab technician. Sputum was classified as eosinophilic or neutrophilic using 3% and 61% cutoffs, respectively., Results: We found a good agreement using intraclass correlation for all target cells, despite significant differences in the cell count rate. The automated CDC had a sensitivity of 65%, a specificity of 93%, and a kappa-coefficient of 0.61 for identification of sputum eosinophilia. In contrast, the automated CDC had a sensitivity of 29%, a specificity of 100%, and a kappa-coefficient of 0.23 for identification of sputum neutrophilia., Conclusion: Automated- and manual cell counts of sputum agree with regards to the key inflammatory cells. The automated cell count had a modest sensitivity but a high specificity for the identification of both neutrophil and eosinophil asthma.

Background: Type 2 inflammation is characterized by enhanced activity of interleukin (IL)-4, -5 and -13, and treatments targeting these pathways are available for treatment of severe asthma. At present, the pattern of pathway activity and the implications overlapping of pathway activity are unknown., Objective: We hypothesized that clustering of airway mRNA expression would identify distinct molecular subtypes of severe asthma and thereby uncover the prevalence and overlap of pathway activity., Methods: Sputum mRNA expression of genes related to expression of IL-5(CLC, CPA3 and DNASE1L3), IL-13(IL13Ra1, TNFSF14 and SERPINB2), T1/Th17 activity(IL1B, ALPL and CXCR2) and in vitro response to corticosteroids (FKBP512) and mepolizumab (ARAP3) was analysed in patients (n = 109) with severe asthma and healthy controls (n = 22). A cluster analysis of gene expression was performed. The response to a short course of OCS was assessed in a subset of patients (n = 29)., Results: Five molecular clusters were identified. Three had abundant T2 gene expression of which two (n = 39 and n = 9) were characterized by abundant expression of both IL-13- and IL-5-related genes. The last (n = 6) had only abundant IL-5-related gene expression. These T2-high molecular clusters could not be distinguished using T2 biomarkers. T2- and Th1/Th17-related mRNA expression were co-expressed across all clusters. OCS significantly reduced T2 gene expression (CLC, IL13Ra1, SERPINB2 and ARAP3) and significantly increase expression of Th1/Th17-related genes (ALPL and CXCR2)., Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Clustering of airway mRNA expression identified five molecular clusters of severe asthma of which three were considered T2 high. Co-expression of IL-5- and IL-13-related genes at moderate levels was present in almost half of patients, while marked elevated expression of both was rare. In contrast to IL-5, clusters with isolated IL-13- and Th1/Th17-related gene expression were not identified., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A. Sverrild reports grants from The Capital Region of Denmark (public funding) and A.P. Moller Foundation (private funding), other (provision of study drugs) from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; personal fees for advisory board and educational activities from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Chiesi, personal fees for advisory board work from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Hansen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Hvidtfeldt has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C-M. Clausson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: O. Cozzolino has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Cerps has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Uller has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V. Backer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Erjefält reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, outside of the submitted work, and is founder of Medetect AB, a CRO company collaborating with AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme and Boehringer Ingelheim. Conflict of interest: C. Porsbjerg reports grants and personal fees for lectures, consultancy and advisory board work from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva and Sanofi, grants and personal fees for lectures from Chiesi, outside the submitted work.

Background: Both anti-viral and anti-inflammatory bronchial effects are warranted to treat viral infections in asthma. We sought to investigate if imiquimod, a TLR7 agonist, exhibits such dual actions in ex vivo cultured human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs), targets for SARS-CoV-2 infectivity., Objective: To investigate bronchial epithelial effects of imiquimod of potential importance for anti-viral treatment in asthmatic patients., Methods: Effects of imiquimod alone were examined in HBECs from healthy (N=4) and asthmatic (N=18) donors. Mimicking SARS-CoV-2 infection, HBECs were stimulated with poly(I:C), a dsRNA analogue, or SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein 1 (SP1; receptor binding) with and without imiquimod treatment. Expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptor (ACE2), pro-inflammatory and anti-viral cytokines were analyzed by RT-qPCR, multiplex ELISA, western blot, and Nanostring and proteomic analyses., Results: Imiquimod reduced ACE2 expression at baseline and after poly(I:C) stimulation. Imiquimod also reduced poly(I:C)-induced pro-inflammatory cytokines including IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-33. Furthermore, imiquimod increased IFN-β expression, an effect potentiated in presence of poly(I:C) or SP1. Multiplex mRNA analysis verified enrichment in type-I IFN signaling concomitant with suppression of cytokine signaling pathways induced by imiquimod in presence of poly(I:C). Exploratory proteomic analyses revealed potentially protective effects of imiquimod on infections., Conclusion: Imiquimod triggers viral resistance mechanisms in HBECs by decreasing ACE2 and increasing IFN-β expression. Additionally, imiquimod improves viral infection tolerance by reducing viral stimulus-induced epithelial cytokines involved in severe COVID-19 infection. Our imiquimod data highlight feasibility of producing pluripotent drugs potentially suited for anti-viral treatment in asthmatic subjects., Competing Interests: MH reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. CP reports grants and personal fees from AZ, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from TEVA, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants and personal fees from Chiesi, grants from Pharmaxis, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Nieto-Fontarigo, Tillgren, Cerps, Sverrild, Hvidtfeldt, Ramu, Menzel, Sander, Porsbjerg and Uller.)

Background: The mannitol test is an indirect bronchial challenge test widely used in diagnosing asthma. Response to the mannitol test correlates with the level of eosinophilic and mast cell airway inflammation, and a positive mannitol test is highly predictive of a response to anti-inflammatory treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. The response to mannitol is a physiological biomarker that may, therefore, be used to assess the response to other anti-inflammatory treatments and may be of particular interest in early phase studies that require surrogate markers to predict a clinical response. The main objectives of this review were to assess the practical aspects of using mannitol as an endpoint in clinical trials and provide the clinical researcher and respiratory physician with recommendations when designing early clinical trials., Methods: The aim of this review was to summarise previous uses of the mannitol test as an outcome measure in clinical intervention studies. The PubMed database was searched using a combination of MeSH and keywords. Eligible studies included intervention or repeatability studies using the standard mannitol test, at multiple timepoints, reporting the use of PD 15 as a measure, and published in English., Results: Of the 193 papers identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and data from these are discussed in detail. Data on the mode of action, correlation with airway inflammation, its diagnostic properties, and repeatability have been summarised, and suggestions for the reporting of test results provided. Worked examples of power calculations for dimensioning study populations are presented for different types of study designs. Finally, interpretation and reporting of the change in the response to the mannitol test are discussed., Conclusions: The mechanistic and practical features of the mannitol test make it a useful marker of disease, not only in clinical diagnoses, but also as an outcome measure in intervention trials. Measuring airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol provides a novel and reproducible test for assessing efficacy in intervention trials, and importantly, utilises a test that links directly to underlying drivers of disease., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with asthma are heterogeneous in clinical presentation and in response to treatment. Despite this, tools to guide treatment are limited and include mainly measures of eosinophilic inflammation and symptoms. Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to mannitol is present in patients across inflammatory phenotypes and improve with inhaled corticosteroids., Objective: To investigate whether measuring AHR to mannitol in addition to eosinophilic inflammation and symptoms adds information to the phenotypic characterization of patients with asthma., Methods: A total of 317 patients with asthma from 6 different cohorts were included in the analysis. All patients had measures of AHR to mannitol, blood eosinophils, and Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 available. A cluster analysis using Ward minimum variance method was performed. The distribution of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, immunoglobulin E, lung function, induced sputum inflammatory cell count, age of onset, and severity of disease was compared between clusters., Results: Four clusters were identified. Three of the clusters had proportionate levels of AHR, eosinophilic inflammation, and symptoms, but 1 cluster presented with low levels of eosinophilic inflammation and a significant symptom burden. Half of the subjects in this cluster presented with AHR to inhaled mannitol. Lung function, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, body mass index, and immunoglobulin E were normal., Conclusions: Information on AHR to mannitol in addition to blood eosinophils and symptoms identifies a subgroup of asthma patients with symptomatic, noneosinophilic disease. Airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol may provide a treatable trait in a subgroup of patients with noneosinophilic asthma., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Type 2 low (T2-low) asthma is reported to respond less to anti-inflammatory treatment compared with Type 2 high (T2-high) asthma. Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to mannitol, a marker of airway mast cell activation, may be indicative of response to treatment in patients with T2-low disease. We investigated whether AHR to mannitol improves in patients with T2-low asthma after specialist management., Methods: Patients with asthma or suspected asthma, referred to our specialist outpatient clinic, were enrolled consecutively and assessed with FeNO, asthma control, blood eosinophils, mannitol and methacholine tests and induced sputum. T2-low asthma was defined in patients with FeNO < 25ppb and sputum eosinophils < 3% and blood eosinophils < 300µl -1 at inclusion. Patients with asthma and AHR to mannitol (PD15 ≤ 635 mg) were followed and reassessed after 12 months of specialist management., Results: Thirty-two patients (Females: 56%, age: 22 years (15-59)) were followed. Fourteen (44%) with T2-high and 18 (56%) with T2-low asthma. Baseline AHR to mannitol was comparable: G PD15: 150 mg (95% CI 61-368) and 214 mg (95% CI 106-432) for T2-high and T2-low asthma respectively ( mean PD15: 150 mg (95% CI 61-368) and 214 mg (95% CI 106-432) for T2-high and T2-low asthma respectively ( P  = 0.51). Both groups improved equally: G mean PD15: 488 mg (95% CI 311-767) and 507 mg (95% CI 345-746); corresponding to a doubling-dose of: 3.00 (95% CI 1.58-5.74, P  = 0.003) and 2.28 (95% CI 1.47-3.53, P  = 0.001) respectively. There were no concomitant improvements in AHR to methacholine., Conclusion: Patients with asthma and AHR to mannitol improve similarly in responsiveness to mannitol after 12 months of specialist management regardless of Type 2 inflammatory biomarker levels. Mechanisms driving AHR in T2-low asthma need to be further elucidated.

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes based on clinical, functional or inflammatory parameters. In particular, the eosinophilic phenotype is associated with type 2 inflammation and increased levels of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13). Monoclonal antibodies that target the eosinophilic inflammatory pathways (IL-5R and IL-5), namely mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab, are effective and safe for severe eosinophilic asthma. Eosinophils threshold represents the most indicative biomarker for response to treatment with all three monoclonal antibodies. Improvement in asthma symptoms scores, lung function, the number of exacerbations, history of late-onset asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, low oral corticosteroids use and low body mass index represent predictive clinical markers of response. Novel Omics studies are emerging with proteomics data and exhaled breath analyses. These may prove useful as biomarkers of response and non-response biologics. Moreover, future biomarker studies need to be undertaken in paediatric patients affected by severe asthma. The choice of appropriate biologic therapy for severe asthma remains challenging. The importance of finding biomarkers that can predict response continuous an open issue that needs to be further explored. This review describes the clinical effects of targeting the IL-5 pathway in severe asthma in adult and paediatric patients, focusing on predictors of response and non-response., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Mast cells (MCs) are known to contribute to both acute and chronic inflammation. Bronchial epithelial cells are the first line of defence against pathogens and a deficient anti-viral response has been suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of asthma exacerbations. However, effects of MC mediators on bronchial epithelial immune response have been less studied. The aim of this study is to investigate the direct effects of stimulation with MC proteases, tryptase and chymase, on inflammatory and anti-viral responses in human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs)., Method: Cultured BEAS-2b cells and primary HBECs from 3 asthmatic patients were stimulated with tryptase or chymase (0.1 to 0.5 μg/ml) for 1, 3, 6 and 24 h. To study the effects of MC mediators on the anti-viral response, cells were stimulated with 10 μg/ml of viral mimic Poly (I:C) for 3 and 24 h following pre-treatment with 0.5 μg/ml tryptase or chymase for 3 h. Samples were analysed for changes in pro-inflammatory and anti-viral mediators and receptors using RT-qPCR, western blot and Luminex., Results: Tryptase and chymase induced release of the alarmin ATP and pro-inflammatory mediators IL-8, IL-6, IL-22 and MCP-1 from HBECs. Moreover, tryptase and chymase decreased the expression of E-cadherin and zonula occludens-1 expression from HBECs. Pre-treatment of HBECs with tryptase and chymase further increased Poly (I:C) induced IL-8 release at 3 h. Furthermore, tryptase significantly reduced type-I and III interferons (IFNs) and pattern recognition receptor (PRR) expression in HBECs. Tryptase impaired Poly (I:C) induced IFN and PRR expression which was restored by treatment of a serine protease inhibitor. Similar effects of tryptase on inflammation and anti-viral responses were also confirmed in primary HBECs from asthmatic patients., Conclusion: MC localization within the epithelium and the release of their proteases may play a critical role in asthma pathology by provoking pro-inflammatory and alarmin responses and downregulating IFNs. Furthermore, MC proteases induce downregulation of epithelial junction proteins which may lead to barrier dysfunction. In summary, our data suggests that mast cells may contribute towards impaired anti-viral epithelial responses during asthma exacerbations mediated by the protease activity of tryptase.

Background: With the introduction of different targeted therapies for type 2 (T2)-high asthma, there is an urgent need for markers to guide the choice of treatment. T2-high asthma includes different clinical phenotypes of asthma, but the prevalence and impact of activation of different T2 inflammatory pathways is unknown., Objective: To describe the level of coexpression of clinically available T2 inflammatory markers in patients with severe asthma, and the relationship with clinical characteristics and comorbidities., Methods: Patients with severe asthma according to European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines were examined prospectively including sputum induction and grouped according to T2 biomarkers: blood eosinophilia (≥0.3 × 10 9 /L), total IgE (≥150 U/mL), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (≥25 parts per billion)., Results: We found 116 (70%) of the 166 patients to have at least 1 T2 biomarker elevated: 39% had 2 or more elevated biomarkers, whereas 31% had only 1 biomarker elevated. Concomitant airway and systemic eosinophilia was present in 28% of all patients, corresponding to half (53%) of the patients with either. Expression patterns of the T2 biomarkers were associated with differences in allergic sensitization and the coexistence of nasal polyposis., Conclusions: Most patients with severe asthma showed at least 1 T2 inflammatory trait. Coexpression of T2 biomarkers was highly heterogeneous, and different expression patterns were associated with distinct clinical characteristics., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Difficult-to-treat asthma affects a minority of adults and children with asthma but represents a challenging mix of misdiagnosis, multimorbidity, inadequate self-management, severe airway pathobiology, and treatment complications. Management of these patients extends beyond asthma pharmacotherapy, because multiple other patient-related domains need to be addressed as well. Such complexity can hinder adequate clinical assessment even when performed in specialist practice. Systematic assessment undertaken by specialized multidisciplinary teams brings a broad range of resources to bear on patients with difficult-to-treat asthma. Although the concept of systematic assessment is not new, practices vary considerably and implementation is not universal. Nevertheless, assessment protocols are already in place in several institutions worldwide, and outcomes after such assessments have been highly encouraging. This review discusses the rationale, components, and benefits of systematic assessment, outlining its clinical utility and the available evidence for improved outcomes. It describes a range of service configurations and assessment approaches, drawing examples from severe asthma centers around the world to highlight common essential elements. It also provides a framework for establishing such services and discusses practical considerations for implementation., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: K. Geale reports research project funding from Novartis for the current work; personal fees for consultancy from Quantify Research, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Darabi reports research project funding from Novartis for the current work; personal fees for consultancy from Quantify Research, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Lindh reports research project funding from Novartis for the current work; personal fees for consultancy from Quantify Research, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Fues Wahl reports research project funding from Novartis for the current work; personal fees for consultancy from Quantify Research, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: O. Ström reports research project funding from Novartis for the current work; personal fees for consultancy from Quantify Research, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Cao is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Company. Conflict of interest: L.A. Alvares is an employee of Novartis. Conflict of interest: R. Dodge has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Loefroth is an employee of Novartis. Conflict of interest: A. Altraja reports personal fees and travel and educational support from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Roche, Teva and Sanofi, grants, personal fees and travel and educational support from Chiesi (Norameda) and GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and travel support from MSD, grants and personal fees from Bayer, travel and educational support from Actelion (Johnson and Johnson), personal fees from Shire Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: V. Backer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Backman reports personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Bjermer reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Teva and ALK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Bossios reports personal fees for advisory board work and/or lectures from AZ, Teva, GSK and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: B. Bøgvald Aarli reports personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Chiesi and Alere, personal fees for consultancy from GlaxoSmithKline, and has stock in from KBB Medic AS, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: B. Dahlén reports personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from AstraZeneca, GSK, Teva, Sanofi and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: O. Hilberg has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Jansson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Kankaanranta reports grants, personal fees for lectures and consultancy, and non-financial support to attend meetings from AstraZeneca, personal fees for lectures and consultancy from Chiesi Pharma AB, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees for lectures and consultancy, and non-financial support to attend meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim and Orion Pharma, personal fees for lectures from Mundipharma, personal fees for consultancy from Sanofi Genzyme, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Karjalainen reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Teva, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Kauppi reports personal fees for lectures from GSK, Teva and Novartis, personal fees for manuscript preparation from Fimea, personal fees for consultancy from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Kilpeläinen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Lehmann reports data analysis and manuscript preparation support from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, personal fees for manuscript preparation from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Lehtimäki reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, pi tlsb -.005wOrionPharma, ALK, Teva and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: B. Lundbäck reports grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: T. Sandström has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Suppli. Ulrik has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Sverrild has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Viinanen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. von Bülow has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V. Yasinska has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Porsbjerg reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi and Teva, outside the submitted work.

Background: Difficult asthma is defined as asthma requiring high dose treatment. However, systematic assessment is required to differentiate severe asthma from difficult-to-treat asthma. Dysfunctional breathing (DB) is a common comorbidity in difficult asthma, which may contribute to symptoms, but how it affects commonly used measures of symptom control is unclear., Methods: All adult asthma patients seen in four respiratory clinics over one year were screened prospectively, and patients with possible severe asthma according to ERS/ATS criteria ('Difficult asthma': high-dose inhaled corticosteroids/oral corticosteroids), underwent systematic assessment. Symptoms of DB were assessed utilizing a symptom based subjective tool, Nijmegen questionnaire (NQ), and objective signs of DB with the Breathing Pattern Assessment Tool (BPAT). Asthma control and quality of life were evaluated with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and the mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)., Results: A total of 117 patients were included. Among these, 29.9% (35/117) had DB according to the NQ. Patients with DB had a poorer asthma control (ACQ: Mean (SD) 2.86 ± 1.05 vs. 1.46 ± 0.93) and lower quality of life (AQLQ score: Mean (SD) 4.2 ± 1.04 vs. 5.49 ± 0.85) compared to patients without DB. Similarly, patients with objective signs of DB according to the BPAT score had worse asthma control: BPAT >4 vs < 4: (ACQ: Mean (SD) 3.15 ± 0.93 vs 2.03 ± 1.15)., Conclusion: DB is common among patients with difficult asthma, and is associated with significantly poorer asthma control and lower quality of life. Assessment and treatment of DB is an important part of the management of difficult asthma., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This study was supported by unrestricted grants from The Danish Lung Association and Novartis Healthcare, Denmark., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Little is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) Clinical Research Collaboration and it is designed to explore these variations. Therefore, we aimed to compare characteristics of patients in European severe asthma registries and treatments before starting biologicals.This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of aggregated data from 11 national severe asthma registries that joined SHARP with established patient databases.Analysis of data from 3236 patients showed many differences in characteristics and lifestyle factors. Current smokers ranged from 0% (Poland and Sweden) to 9.5% (Belgium), mean body mass index ranged from 26.2 (Italy) to 30.6 kg·m -2 (the UK) and the largest difference in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted was 20.9% (the Netherlands versus Hungary). Before starting biologicals patients were treated differently between countries: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose ranged from 700 to 1335 µg·day -1 between those from Slovenia versus Poland when starting anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody and from 772 to 1344 µg·day -1 in those starting anti-IgE (Slovenia versus Spain). Maintenance oral corticosteroid use ranged from 21.0% (Belgium) to 63.0% (Sweden) and from 9.1% (Denmark) to 56.1% (the UK) in patients starting anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE, respectively.The severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment, often appearing not to comply with the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines definition of severe asthma. Treatment regimens before starting biologicals were different from inclusion criteria in clinical trials and varied between countries., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J.J.M.H. van Bragt has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I.M. Adcock has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E.H.D. Bel reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Novartis, grants from Teva, and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi/Regeneron, Vectura and Sterna, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G-J. Braunstahl reports grants from GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Ten Brinke reports institutional fees for research advisory boards and lectures from GSK, Teva and AstraZeneca, institutional fees for research advisory boards from Sanofi, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Busby has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G.W. Canonica reports personal fees from A. Menarini, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Teva, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: H. Cao is an employee of Novartis, which is one of the funding pharmaceutical companies of SHARP. Conflict of interest: K.F. Chung has received honoraria for participating in advisory board meetings from GSK, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim and Teva regarding treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has also been remunerated for speaking engagements. Conflict of interest: Z. Csoma has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Dahlén reports advisory board membership for Teva, GSK and Sanofi, personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E. Davin has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Hansen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Heffler reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Novartis, GSK, Circassia and Nestle Purina, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: I. Horvath reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Chiesi, Berlin-Chemie, Roche, MSD, CSL and Sager Pharma, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Korn reports personal fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Teva and Roche, grants and personal fees from GSK and Novartis, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: M. Kots is a full time Chiesi Famaceutici SpA employee, Global clinical development department. Conflict of interest: P. Kuna reports personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from AstraZeneca and Novartis, personal fees for lectures and nonfinancial support for meeting attendance from Berlin-Chemie, Menarini and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Kwon is an employee of GSK. Conflict of interest: R. Louis reports grants and personal fees for advisory board work from GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis, grants from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: V. Plaza reports grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Chiesi, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from ALK, Mundipharma and Sanofi, grants from Menarini, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Porsbjerg has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Ramos-Barbon has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L.B. Richards has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Škrgat reports personal fees for lectures and scientific discussion at symposia from Teva and Boehringer, personal fees for lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Glaxo, Berlin-Chemie and Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.K. Sont has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S.J.H. Vijverberg has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E.J. Weersink has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V. Yasinska has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S.S. Wagers reports consultancy fees from the European Respiratory Society, during the conduct of the study; consultancy fees from King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Academic Medical Research, AMC Medical Research BV, Asthma UK, Athens Medical School, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, CHU de Toulouse, CIRO, DS Biologicals Ltd, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, European Respiratory Society, FISEVI, Fluidic Analytics Ltd, Fraunhofer IGB, Fraunhofer ITEM, GSK R&D Ltd, Holland and Knight, Karolinska Institutet Fakturor, KU Leuven, Longfonds, National Heart and Lung Institute, Novartis Pharma AG, Owlstone Medical Ltd, PExA AB, UCB Biopharma SPRL, UCB Biosciences GmbH, Umeå University, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Universita Cattolica Del Sacro Cuore, Universität Ulm, University of Bern, University of Edinburgh, University of Hull, University of Leicester, University of Loughborough, University of Luxembourg, University of Manchester, University of Nottingham, Vlaams Brabant, Dienst Europa, Imperial College London, Boehringer Ingelheim, Breathomix, Gossamer Bio, AstraZeneca and CIBER, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R. Djukanovic reports receiving fees for lectures at symposia organised by Novartis, AstraZeneca and Teva, consultation for Teva and Novartis as member of advisory boards, and participation in a scientific discussion about asthma organised by GSK; and is a co-founder and current consultant, and has shares in Synairgen, a University of Southampton spin out company. Conflict of interest: A.H. Maitland-van der Zee reports personal fees for participating in an advisory board from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, unrestricted research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and GSK., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)

Introduction and Aim: Uncontrolled asthma is a global health challenge with substantial impact on quality of life (QoL) and overall healthcare costs. Unrecognised and/or unmanaged comorbidities often contribute to presence of uncontrolled asthma. Abnormalities in breathing pattern are termed dysfunctional breathing and are not only common in asthma but also lead to asthma-like symptoms and reduced QoL, and, in keeping with this, improvement with breathing normalisation. Evidence-based guidelines recommend breathing retraining interventions as an adjuvant treatment in uncontrolled asthma. Physiotherapy-based breathing pattern modification interventions incorporating relaxation have been shown to improve asthma-related QoL in primary care patients with impaired asthma control. Despite anecdotal reports, effectiveness of breathing retraining in patients referred to secondary care with incomplete asthma control has not been formally assessed in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). We aim to investigate the effect of breathing exercises on asthma-related QoL in patients with incomplete asthma control despite specialist care., Methods and Analysis: This two-armed assessor-blinded multicentre RCT will investigate the effect of physiotherapist-delivered breathing retraining on asthma QoL questionnaire (MiniAQLQ) in addition to usual specialist care, recruiting from seven outpatient departments and one specialised clinic representing all regions of Denmark during 2017-2019. We will include 190 consenting adults with incomplete asthma control, defined as Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item score ≥0.8. Participants will randomly be allocated to either breathing exercise programme in addition to usual care (BrEX +UC) or UC alone. BrEX compiles three physiotherapy sessions and encouragement to perform home exercise daily. Both groups continue usual secondary care management. Primary outcome is between-group difference in MiniAQLQ at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures, spirometry and accelerometer., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics Committee, Region Zealand (SJ-552) and Danish Data Protection Agency (REG-55-2016) approved the trial. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT03127059; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: STS is an associate editor of the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, has received grants from The Lundbeck Foundation, personal fees from Munksgaard, all of which are outside the submitted work. He is co-founder of GLA:D®, a not-for profit initiative hosted at University of Southern Denmark aimed at implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis in clinical practice., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

COPD and asthma exacerbations are commonly triggered by rhinovirus infection. Potentially promoting exacerbations, impaired anti-viral signaling and attenuated viral clearance have been observed in diseased bronchial epithelium. Oxidative stress is a feature of inflammation in asthma and COPD and is prominent during exacerbations. It is not known whether oxidative stress affects the anti-viral signaling capacity. Bronchial epithelial cells from asthmatic and COPD donors were infected with rhinovirus or treated with the oxidative stressor H 2 O 2 followed by exposure to the synthetic viral replication intermediate poly(I:C). Poly(I:C) was used to ascertain a constant infection-like burden. Gene and protein levels of antioxidants as well as anti-viral responses were measured 3 and 24 h post poly(I:C) exposure. Rhinovirus infection and poly(I:C) stimulation induced protein levels of the antioxidants SOD1 and SOD2. In asthmatic bronchial epithelial cells pre-treatment with H 2 O 2 dose-dependently decreased the antioxidant response to poly(I:C), suggesting exaggerated oxidative stress. Further, poly(I:C)-induced IFNβ gene expression was reduced after pre-treatment with H 2 O 2 . This epithelial effect was associated with a reduced expression of the pattern recognition receptors RIG-I, MDA5 and TLR3 both on gene and protein level. Pre-treatment with H 2 O 2 did not alter antioxidant responses in COPD bronchial epithelial cells and, more modestly than in asthma, reduced poly(I:C)-induced IFNβ gene expression. Knockdown of TLR3 but not RIG-I/MDA5 abrogated impairment of poly(I:C)-induced IFNβ gene expression by H 2 O 2 . We developed a method by which we could demonstrate that oxidative stress impairs anti-viral signaling in bronchial epithelial cells from asthmatic and COPD patients, most pronounced in asthma. The impairment apparently reflects reduced responsiveness of TLR3. These present findings shed light on molecular mechanisms potentially causing reduced interferon responses to rhinovirus infection at exacerbations in asthma and COPD. Together, our findings suggest a possible self-perpetuating vicious cycle underlying recurrent exacerbations, leading to an impaired anti-viral response, which in turn leads to viral-induced exacerbations, causing more airway inflammation., (Copyright © 2019 Menzel, Ramu, Calvén, Olejnicka, Sverrild, Porsbjerg, Tufvesson, Bjermer, Akbarshahi and Uller.)

Background: The lack of centralized data on severe asthma has resulted in a scarcity of information about the disease and its management. The development of a common data collection tool for the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) will enable standardized data collection, subsequently enabling data interoperability., Objectives: To create a standardized list of variables for the first international registry for severe asthma via expert consensus., Methods: A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on a minimum set of variables to capture in ISAR: the core variables. The Delphi panel brought together 27 international experts in the field of severe asthma research. The process consisted of 3 iterative rounds. In each round, all Delphi panel members were issued an electronic ISAR Delphi workbook to complete and return to the ISAR Delphi administrator. Workbooks and result summaries were anonymously distributed by the Delphi administrator to all panel members at subsequent rounds. Finalization of the core variable list was facilitated by 2 face-to-face meetings., Results: Of the initial 747 selected variables, the Delphi panel reached a consensus on 95. The chosen variables will allow severe asthma to be assessed against patient demographics and medical history, patient-reported outcomes, diagnostic information, and clinical characteristics. Physician-reported outcomes such as nonadherence and information about treatment and management strategies will also be recorded., Conclusions: This is the first global attempt to generate an ISAR using a common set of core variables to ensure that data collected across all participating countries are standardized., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Investigating disease mechanisms and treatment responses in obstructive airway diseases with invasive sampling are hampered by the small size and mechanical artefacts that conventional forceps biopsies suffer from. Endoscopic cryobiopsies are larger and more intact and are being increasingly used. However, the technique has not yet been explored for obtaining mucosa biopsies., Objective: To investigate differences in size and quality of endobronchial mucosal biopsies obtained with cryotechnique and forceps. Further, to check for eligibility of cryobiopsies to be evaluated with immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization and to investigate tolerability and safety of the technique., Methods: Endobronchial mucosal biopsies were obtained with cryotechnique and forceps from patients with haemoptysis undergoing bronchoscopy and evaluated by quantitative morphometry, automated immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization., Results: A total of 40 biopsies were obtained from 10 patients. Cross-sectional areas were threefold larger in cryobiopsies (median: 3.08 mm 2 (IQR: 1.79) vs 1.03 mm 2 (IQR: 1.10), P < 0.001). Stretches of intact epithelium were 8-fold longer (median: 4.61 mm (IQR: 4.50) vs 0.55 mm (IQR: 1.23), P = 0.001). Content of glands (median: 0.095 mm 2 (IQR: 0.30) vs 0.00 mm 2 (IQR: 0.01), P = 0.002) and airway smooth muscle (median: 0.25 mm 2 (IQR: 0.30) vs 0.060 mm 2 (IQR: 0.11), P = 0.02) was higher in the cryobiopsies compared with forceps biopsies. Further, the cryobiopsies had well-preserved protein antigens and mRNA. Mild to moderate bleeding was the only complication observed., Conclusion and Clinical Relevance: By yielding significantly larger and more intact biopsies, the cryotechnique represents a valuable new research tool to explore the bronchi in airway disease. Ultimately with the potential to create better understanding of underlying disease mechanisms and improvement of treatments., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Guidelines recommend a differentiation of difficult-to-treat asthma from severe asthma. However, this might be complex and to which extent this distinction is achievable in clinical practice remains unknown., Objective: To evaluate to which degree a systematic evaluation protocol enables a differentiation between severe versus difficult-to-treat asthma in patients in specialist care on high intensity asthma treatment, i.e. potentially severe asthma., Methods: All adult asthma patients seen in four respiratory clinics over one year were screened prospectively for asthma severity. Patients with difficult-to-control asthma according to ERS/ATS criteria (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids/oral corticosteroids) underwent systematic assessment to differentiate severe asthma patients from those with other causes of poor asthma control: objective confirmation of the asthma diagnosis as well as assessment of treatment barriers and comorbidities., Results: Overall, 1034 asthma patients were screened, of whom 175 (16.9%) had difficult-to-control asthma. 117 of these accepted inclusion, and completed systematic assessment. Asthma diagnosis was objectively confirmed in 88%. Sub-optimal adherence (42.5%), inhaler errors (31.5%) and unmanaged comorbidities (66.7%) were common. After primary assessment, 12% (14/117) fulfilled strict criteria for severe asthma. Moreover, 56% (66/117) were instantly classified as difficult-to-treat asthma due to poor adherence/inhaler technique. Finally, an ´overlap' group of 32% (37/117) were identified with patients being adherent and displaying correct inhaler technique, but had unmanaged comorbidities -potentially fitting into both the difficult-to-treat and severe group., Conclusion: Only a minority of patients with difficult-to-control asthma were found to have severe asthma after primary systematic assessment. Nevertheless, strict categorisation of severe vs. difficult-to-treat asthma seems to pose a challenge., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The American Thoracic society (ATS) has suggested using fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) to monitor the level of eosinophilic (EOS) airway inflammation in asthma, but validation of the proposed cut-points is required in real-life populations., Objective: To validate FeNO cut-points suggested by ATS in relation to sputum EOS count in a real life population of asthma patients., Methods: All patients referred consecutively over a 12-months period for specialist assessment of asthma, were examined with FeNO and induced sputum, and re-examined 12 months later. The predicted values of a positive and a negative test (PPV and NPV) for a cut off ≥3% EOS in sputum were calculated. Change in FeNO was defined in accordance with ATS (>20% or 10 ppb if FeNO was <50 ppb)., Results: 144 adult asthma patients were examined (59% female). Low FeNO (<25 ppb) at baseline was found in 94 (65%), FeNO between 25 and 50 ppb in 34 (24%) subjects and high FeNO >50 ppb in 16 (11%) subjects. The PPV for FeNO >25 ppb and >50 ppb to predict EOS ≥3% was 45% and 77%, NPV was 88% and 83%. The sensitivity decreased from 70% to 37% at the >50 ppb cut-off. A significant reduction in FeNO was associated with a reduction in sputum EOS (p = 0.01)., Conclusion: The findings support the validity of the FeNO cut-points suggested by ATS to monitor eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthma. However, in this real-life population, a large proportion of patients had intermediate FeNO values, which may limit the clinical usefulness of the ATS FeNO cut-points., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: The impact of diagnostic work-up in asthma management on medication redemption and probably also drug adherence is largely unknown, but we hypothesized that a confirmed diagnosis of asthma in a hospital-based out-patient clinic increases the willingness to subsequent medication redemption in a real life setting., Methods: In a retrospective register-based study, 300 medical records of patients referred with possible asthma during one year were examined, of whom 171 had asthma (57%). One-year data on dispensed medicine was collected using the Danish Registry of Medicinal Product Statistics. Patients who had a positive asthma (e.g. bronchial challenge) were classified as verified asthma, whereas unverified asthma refers to doctor's diagnosis of asthma with negative or no diagnostic tests performed., Results: 111 (65%) had a verified diagnosis and patients with verified asthma were more frequently prescribed new therapy compared to those with unverified asthma (88.9% vs. 65.0%, respectively, p < 0.001). No difference was found in first time redemption of prescriptions (72% vs. 64%, respectively, p = 0.3), whereas the second (52% vs. 27%, p = 0.001) and third or more asthma redeemed prescriptions (37% vs. 17%, p = 0.006) showed increased redemption of prescription and probably adherence in the verified compared with the unverified patients with asthma. Furthermore, the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) was calculated as Percent Days Covered (PDC), which was higher in the verified group compared with the non-verified asthma group (88% vs. 30%, p = 0.004)., Conclusion: Objective verification of a diagnosis of asthma using asthma tests was associated with an improved redemption of prescription.

Background: Several animal studies, and one inoculation study in adult asthmatics have shown that interleukin-33 (IL-33) is a major contributor to type-2 inflammation in acute asthma. However, the link between IL-33 and type-2 inflammation has not been shown in naturally occurring asthma exacerbations., Objectives: To determine if airway IL-33 is associated with type-2 inflammation measured by type-2 cytokines, FeNO and sputum eosinophils in patients presenting to the Emergency Department with an asthma exacerbations., Methods: Adult patients hospitalized due to acute asthma were enrolled. Upper airways were sampled with nasal swabs and lower airways with induced sputum. Cytokines were measured at protein level using a Luminex ® assay and mRNA expression level using droplet-digital-PCR. Airway sampling was repeated four weeks after exacerbation., Results: At the time of exacerbation, upper airway IL-33 correlated with upper airway IL-5 and IL-13 (R = 0.84, p < 0.01 and R = 0.76, p < 0.01, respectively) and with lower airway IL-13 (R = 0.49, p = 0.03). Similar associations were observed for mRNA expression. Lower airway IL-33 positively correlated with lower airway IL-13 (R = 0.84, p < 0.01). IL-13 and IL-33 were positively correlated with FeNO, and IL-5 with eosinophils. The association between IL-33 and type-2 cytokines were still present four weeks after exacerbation., Conclusion: This is the first study to demonstrate that airway IL-33 is associated with type-2 cytokines in naturally occurring asthma exacerbations in adults, providing in vivo evidence supporting that IL-33 may be driving type-2 inflammation in acute asthma. Thus supporting IL-33 as a potential future drug target due to its role, upstream in the immunological cascade., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Behavioral interventions focusing on exercise and healthy diet improve asthma control in obese patients with asthma, but whether these interventions can lead to improvements in nonobese patients remains unclear., Objectives: In a randomized, controlled parallel-group design, we studied the effects of an 8-week intervention of either exercise (high-intensity interval training), diet (high protein/low glycemic index), or a combination of the 2, on asthma control and clinical outcomes in nonobese patients with asthma., Methods: Nonobese adult patients with asthma (n = 149) were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: an exercise group, a diet group, an exercise + diet group, or a control group. Outcomes included Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score, asthma-related quality-of-life (Asthma-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]) score, inflammatory cell counts in induced sputum, FEV 1 , fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR)., Results: A total of 125 patients completed the study and were included in the data analysis. Patients in the exercise + diet group improved the ACQ score from 1.9 ± 0.7 to 1.0 ± 0.7 and the AQLQ score from 5.2 ± 0.8 to 6.2 ± 0.7, which was statistically significant when compared with changes in the control group (P < .05 and <.01, respectively). The exercise group and the diet group did not improve either the ACQ score or the AQLQ score significantly compared with the control group and there were no significant changes in sputum cell counts, FEV 1 , fractional exhaled nitric oxide, or AHR within any groups following the intervention period., Conclusions: The combination of exercise and diet improves asthma control in nonobese patients, but does not affect AHR or airway inflammation., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)