Search

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction with a mortality rate of 10%. Interstitial nephritis, pneumonitis, myocarditis, meningitis, thyroiditis and pancreatitis are major causes of morbidity and mortality in this syndrome. Cessation of offending medication is paramount. There is paucity in high quality prospective studies guiding the treatment of DRESS, and there are no published therapeutic clinical trials in the treatment of corticosteroid refractory hypersensitivity myocarditis. The authors present a unique case of ciprofloxacin-induced DRESS with concurrent thyroiditis and refractory eosinophilic myocarditis that required mepolizumab and multiple immunosuppressants for successful treatment.

Background Anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) therapy has been proposed as a novel treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, its efficacy for preventing COPD exacerbation remains unclear. Methods A literature review was conducted to August 26th 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of anti-IL-5 therapy were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the risk of COPD exacerbation. Results A total of 3 articles containing 5 RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 2837 and 1442 patients received anti-IL-5 therapy (mepolizumab, n = 865; benralizumab, n = 1972) and placebo, respectively. In the pooled analysis, anti-IL-5 therapy was associated with a lower risk of COPD exacerbation compared with the placebo (rate ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86–0.97, I2 = 0%). In addition, no significant differences in the changes in SGRQ scores and FEV1 from baseline were found between the anti-IL-5 therapy and placebo (SGRQ, mean difference, −0.86, 95% CI, −1.92 – 0.19, I2 = 0%; FEV1, mean difference, 0.01, 95% CI, −0.01 – 0.03, I2 = 0%). Anti-IL-5 therapy had a similar risk of any adverse event (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99–1.05), an event leading to treatment discontinuation (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.48) and any serious adverse events (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85–1.01) when compared with the placebo. Conclusion Anti-IL-5 therapy was associated with a lower rate of COPD exacerbation compared with placebo. In addition, anti-IL-5 therapy was well tolerated for COPD patients.

Background Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a relapsing disease with frequent glucocorticoid dependence. Mepolizumab has been demonstrated to reduce flares and spare glucocorticoids (GC). However, EGPA is a heterogeneous condition and the effects of mepolizumab on specific disease manifestations has not been completely delimitated. Objectives To analyse the impact of mepolizumab on manifestations derived from small-vessel vasculitis, ENT (ear, nose and throat) symptoms, asthma, eosinophilic tissue infiltration and anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) status in a single-centre cohort of EGPA patients. Methods Medical charts of EGPA patients treated with mepolizumab were retrospectively reviewed by the authors to describe demographics, clinical characteristics, steroid dose at the initiation of mepolizumab and during follow-up, flares, disease activity, damage accrual and laboratory results. Results and conclusions Among 56 patients with EGPA regularly controlled at our department, 11 patients were treated with mepolizumab because of corticodependence and unsatisfactory disease control. The mean time of treatment was 38 months (range: 3-66 months). Patients with persistent symptoms improved their asthma control, but 3 of them persisted with recurrent ENT symptoms in spite of treatment with mepolizumab. None of the patients developed vasculitic manifestations (cutaneous, neurological, gastrointestinal, renal) during treatment. All patients achieved a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) of 0 points at 12 months or earlier. In general, patients reduced the number of flares, which tended to be milder, and all related to asthma or ENT manifestations. The improvement in disease activity allowed notable glucocorticoid tapering.

Background Little is known on the persistence of asthma biologic use in clinical practice. Objective To evaluate the persistence of asthma biologic use and time to clinical response in clinical practice. Methods A cohort of people with asthma who used at least 1 asthma biologic was constructed using data from 2003 to 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Treatment persistence was defined by the length of time that a person continuously used an asthma biologic, allowing for a lapse in use up to 4 months before confirming that a person stopped. Clinical response to treatment (defined as a decline in asthma exacerbations of at least 50% compared with the 6 months before starting an asthma biologic) was described over time and in relation to biologic persistence. Results There were 9575 people who had at least 1 episode of asthma biologic use. There were 5319 people (64%, 95% confidence interval, 63%-65%) who completed 6 months or more on an asthma biologic and 3284 (45%, 95% confidence interval, 44%-46%) who completed 12 months or more. Of people with 1 or more asthma exacerbation 6 months before index biologic use, 63%, 76%, 80%, and 81% realized a 50% or more reduction in postindex asthma exacerbations in the first 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and 18 to 24 months, respectively. Conclusion Between 48% and 64% of people remained on an asthma biologic for 6 months or more after first use. Most people who achieved a reduction in asthma exacerbations did so in the first 6 months of treatment.

Patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps represent an unmet clinical need in terms of recurrent disease despite current medical and surgical therapy. Targeting type 2 inflammatory cytokines (IL4/5/13) appears to be a promising therapeutic approach for such patients akin to what has already been seen in severe asthma. An indirect comparison from phase 3 placebo-controlled trials has shown relative improvements in the coprimary end point of nasal polyp score (NPS) ranging from a 15% reduction (-0.8 units) with mepolizumab, 18% with omalizumab (-1.14 units), and 35% (-2.06 units) with dupilumab. This trend was mirrored by relative improvements in health status with the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test score showing a 21% reduction (-13.7 units) with mepolizumab, 27% (-16.1 units) with omalizumab, and 43% (-21.1 units) with dupilumab, all exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 8.9 units. All biologics improved the coprimary end point of nasal airway blockage and also reduced the need for rescue medical and/or surgical polypectomy. We advocate performing real-life studies looking at the response to biologics in patients who are at increased risk for disease recurrence, including initial optimal medical and surgical polyp clearance before commencing biologics.

Introduction: Asthma and hypereosinophilia have been treated with different therapeutics in the past. Some of them appear to be more effective in symptoms resolution and decreasing eosinophilic count. Case Presentation: We report here an unusual case of asthma with hypereosinophilia secondary to Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) with high prevalence of eosinophilic infiltrate, treated simultaneously with an anti-IL-5 antibody (Mepolizumab) and Tyrosine-kinase Inhibitors (TKI: Imatinib and Bosutinib) for three years. The patient showed a promising reduction of pulmonary exacerbations and good control of CML without developing side effects. Conclusion: We hope that this finding could inspire further studies on the efficacy and safety of the concomitant use of anti-IL-5 and TKI.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-5 class therapy agents in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma and the financial impact of these drugs on the Brazilian and Mato Grosso public health systems. Methods The literature review in important databases was guided by a structured research question including patient or population, intervention, comparator, outcome and type of study. The retrieved studies went through a screening, selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment process. A model with two scenarios, one with mepolizumab and the other with benralizumab, was created for budget impact analysis. Results Evidence indicated that anti-interleukins-5 have an acceptable safety profile and can reduce exacerbation rates by up to 50% in the population with eosinophilic asthma; however, they showed no significant difference in quality of life. The adoption of these drugs in the Brazilian health system can impact the budget from R$ 40,379,731.50 to R$ 140,301,211.34 depending on the drug incorporated, considering a time horizon of 5 years. From the perspective of the state of Mato Grosso, the budget impact may reach, in the fifth year, an amount of R$ 1,301,210.58 and R$ 2,050.687.62 for the scenarios with mepolizumab and benralizumab, respectively. Conclusion Anti-interleukins-5 are promising treatments for eosinophilic asthma because they minimise exacerbations and are well tolerated and safe. The financial impact is large, implying that technology costs may be a barrier to accessing this treatment class.

Introduction There is an ongoing debate as to the role of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection on asthma exacerbation, and its long-term impact on the lung function of individuals with asthma. In contrast, the potential impact of COVID -19 vaccination on asthma is entirely unexplored. Case Study We are shedding light on this critical topic by examining a challenging case of severe asthma exacerbation that a 28-year-old female patient developed after receiving two doses of mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at our Hospital, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo of Pavia, in Northern Italy. The patient is a fourth year resident at the hospital, and like all health care workers at the facility, has been vaccinated since early 2021. She was an occasional smoker with a 10-year history of asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis. She also tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 on several negative molecular swabs and serology tests. Results After receiving the second vaccine dose, she started experiencing a worsening of respiratory symptoms. Following several episodes, and a severe asthma attack, the patient required treatment with mepolizumab, a biologic drug [interleukin-5 (IL-5)] antagonist monoclonal antibody. Conclusion This single case study is insufficient to draw conclusions about the association between asthma exacerbation and the COVID-19 vaccine. While the cause-effect link between vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and worsening of asthmatic disease might only be suggested, we consider the present case as a valuable prompt for further investigations. This is particularly true from the perspective of mass vaccination of adolescents and children currently underway across the globe.

Purpose To report the case of a patient with refractory chronic eosinophilic pneumonia who developed rheumatoid arthritis during anti-interleukin (IL)-5 therapy. Case Report The case of a 66-year-old male ex-smoker with allergic rhinitis who had dyspnea and chronic cough for 6 months and who was ultimately diagnosed with chronic eosinophilic pneumonia is reported. Long-term corticosteroid therapy was necessary due to recurrence of the chronic eosinophilic pneumonia during tapering of the corticosteroid. As a steroid sparing strategy, mepolizumab was initiated, and the steroid was tapered gradually. When the dose of prednisolone was 2 mg/day, he developed polyarthralgia. Mepolizumab was changed to benralizumab considering the possibility that arthralgia was a side effect of mepolizumab; however, the arthralgia continued and he was ultimately diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Methotrexate was initiated and his arthritis improved. Thereafter, benralizumab was discontinued after 5 injections, and he subsequently required neither systemic corticosteroids nor biologics. Conclusion The present case may suggest that suppression of IL-5 induces rheumatoid arthritis in certain patients; however, it is also possible that initial steroid therapy improved subclinical RA and made it remain undiagnosed, and the parallel OCS tapering during IL-5 therapy could have contributed to unveil the underlying RA. Further studies are required to establish guidelines on the optimum use of anti-IL-5 therapy and to understand the interactions between chronic eosinophilic pneumonia, anti-IL-5 therapy, tapering of corticosteroid and development of rheumatoid arthritis.

Introduction: Compared with the placebo, biologics are beneficial in reducing nasal polyp mass and safe in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, there lacks a head-to-head randomized trial comparing biologics. We aimed to determine the best biologic for CRSwNP. Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021226766). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on December 29, 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing biologics in adult patients for CRSwNP were included. Results: Nine RCTs with 1,190 patients comparing 3 different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab) and the placebo were included. Dupilumab had the best efficacy in terms of nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score, and nasal congestion score (NCS) for surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.900, 0.916, 1.000, and 0.807, respectively. Omalizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of SNOT-22, UPSIT, and NCS for SUCRA values of 0.606, 0.500, and 0.693, respectively. Mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy in terms of NPS for SUCRA values of 0.563 and had the highest risk of adverse events (AEs) for SUCRA values of 0.746. Conclusion: This is the first NMA that compared different biologics in patients with CRSwNP. Based on the efficacy (NPS) and safety (AEs), dupilumab is the best choice and omalizumab is the second best option for CRSwNP. Although mepolizumab ranked second in efficacy, it had the highest risk of AEs.

Sever e and difficult asthma in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) can relate to (a) lack of availability of basic medications; (b) potentially reversible factors such as poor adherence or comorbidities such as obesity inhibiting a good response to treatment; and (c) (rarely) true severe, therapy-resistant asthma. However, definitions of severity should encompass not merely doses of prescribed medication, but also underlying risk. The nature of asthmatic airway disease shows geographical variation, and LMIC asthma should not be assumed to be phenotypically the same as that in high-income countries (HICs). The first assessment step is to ensure another diagnosis is not being missed. Largely, political action is needed if children with asthma are to get access to basic medications. If a child is apparently not responding to low dose, simple medications, the next step is not to increase the dose but perform a detailed assessment of what factors (for example co-morbidities such as obesity, or social factors like poor adherence) are inhibiting a treatment response; in most cases, an underlying reason can be found. An assessment of risk of future severe asthma attacks, side-effects of medication and impaired lung development is also important. True severe, therapy-resistant asthma is rare and there are multiple underlying molecular pathologies. In HICs, steroid-resistant eosinophilia would be treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab, but the cost of these is prohibitive in LMICs, the biomarkers of successful therapy are likely only relevant to HICs. In LMICs, a raised blood eosinophil count may be due to parasites, so treating asthma based on the blood eosinophil count may not be appropriate in these settings.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps affects approximately 2–4% of the general population, and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with adverse effects. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in adults with recurrent, refractory severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Methods: SYNAPSE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 93 centres, mainly hospitals, in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent, refractory, severe, bilateral nasal polyp symptoms (nasal obstruction symptom visual analogue scale [VAS] score of >5), were eligible for repeat nasal surgery (overall symptoms VAS score >7 and endoscopic nasal polyps score of ≥5, with a minimum score of 2 in each nasal cavity) despite standard of care treatment, and had to have at least one nasal surgery in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using permuted block design, to receive either 100 mg mepolizumab subcutaneously or placebo once every 4 weeks, in addition to standard of care (mometasone furoate intranasal spray for at least 8 weeks before screening and during the study, saline nasal irrigations, systemic corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both), as required, for 52 weeks. Site staff, the central study team, and patients were masked to study treatment and absolute blood eosinophil counts. The coprimary endpoints were change from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp score at week 52 and in mean nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49–52, assessed in the intention-to-treat population (ITT). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03085797. Findings: From May 25, 2017, to Dec 12, 2018, 854 patients were screened for eligibility. 414 patients were randomly assigned with 407 included in the ITT population; 206 received mepolizumab and 201 received placebo. Total endoscopic nasal polyp score significantly improved at week 52 from baseline with mepolizumab versus placebo (adjusted difference in medians −0·73, 95% CI −1·11 to −0·34; p

Background The efficacy of mepolizumab is well documented in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although the stringent selection criteria adopted by SEA clinical trials limits the generalizability of results. Objective Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in patients with SEA in Spain. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations 12 months after starting mepolizumab compared to the baseline rate in the 12 months prior to treatment. Patients were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil counts. Methods We conducted a multicentric observational cohort study of SEA patients treated with mepolizumab across 24 specialized hospital asthma units in Spain. Severe exacerbation rate, lung function, oral corticosteroid use (OCS) and asthma control test (ACT) were retrospectively collected and compared during the 12-month pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment. Adverse events were also investigated. Results A total of 318 patients with SEA were included (mean age: 56.6 years, 69.2% female). Exacerbation rates decreased by 77.5%, and 50.6% of patients did not suffer any exacerbations during the 12 months of treatment. The difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) pre- and post-bronchodilator after starting mepolizumab was 0.21 (0.46) L (95% CI 0.14–0.27) (p < 0.001). Exacerbations and lung function significantly improved across all eosinophil subgroups. Among the 98 patients on OCS, 47.8% were able to discontinue this treatment and the mean daily dose was decreased by 59.9%. The baseline ACT score was 14.1, increasing by a mean (SD) of 6.7 points (1.9) at 12 months. Adverse events related to mepolizumab were uncommon. Conclusions This real-world study of SEA patients confirms that mepolizumab is effective in reducing clinically meaningful exacerbations, improving lung function, and decreasing OCS dependence and mean OCS dose at 12 months, irrespective of baseline eosinophil counts. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01597-9.

Was ist neu? Remissionsinduktion bei Granulomatose mit Polyangiitis (GPA)/mikroskopischer Polyangiitis (MPA) Das Komplementsystem spielt in der Pathogenese, anders als früher vermutet, eine bedeutsame Rolle. Durch diese Erkenntnis war es möglich, einen vollständig neuen Therapieansatz zu etablieren. Die Blockade des C5a-Rezeptors mit Avacopan erwies sich in klinischen Studien als effektiv und ermöglichte erstmals eine (fast) GC-freie Remissionsinduktion. Avacopan ist eine kleines, gezielt eingreifendes Molekül und wird absehbar in die Therapie der GPA/MPA Einzug halten. Die therapeutische Bedeutung der Plasmapherese tritt weiter in den Hintergrund. Diese Therapieform bleibt aktuell wenigen Ausnahmesituationen vorbehalten und kann nicht mehr generell bei Glomerulonephritis oder pulmorenalem Syndrom empfohlen werden. Therapieprotokolle mit vermindertem GC-Einsatz zeigen ähnlich gute Erfolge wie Hochdosisprotokolle. Der GC-Einsatz kann daher weiter limitiert werden. GPA/MPA-Remissionserhaltung Vor allem die MAINRITSAN-Studien zeigen, dass Rituximab dem Azathioprin in der Remissionserhaltung überlegen ist und dass eine längere Erhaltungstherapie, insbesondere bei Risikopatienten, mit klinisch relevant geringeren Rezidivraten einhergeht. Genetik der eosinophilen Granulomatose mit Polyangiitis (EGPA) Trotz der Seltenheit der EGPA konnte ein internationales Konsortium eine genomweite Assoziationsstudie (GWAS) durchführen. Hierbei bestätigte sich auch auf der genetischen Ebene der klinische Eindruck zweier distinkter Subgruppen. Es kann ein mehr vaskulitisch geprägter Subtyp von einem durch die Eosinophilie dominierten unterschieden werden. Diese Ergebnisse werden für zukünftige Therapiekonzepte relevant sein. EGPA-Therapie Die bisher größte RCT bei EGPA wies eine verminderte Rezidivrate sowie einen GC-einsparenden Effekt eines Anti-IL-5-Antikörpers (Mepolizumab) nach. Der klinische Nutzen bestätigte sich in einer weiteren Analyse der Daten und auch in der „Real Life“-Anwendung.

ZusammenfassungHintergrund Die chronische Rhinosinusitis mit Nasenpolypen (CRSwNP) ist eine multifaktorielle entzündliche Erkrankung, oftmals auf der Grundlage einer Typ-2-Inflammation. Für die Behandlung von Patienten mit einer schweren Ausprägung ohne ausreichendes Ansprechen auf die Standardtherapie mit topischen nasalen Steroiden und/oder Zustand nach endonasaler Operation sind als Biologika aktuell Dupilumab und Omalizumab für die Therapie zugelassen. Nachdem wir in einer früheren Publikation für Dupilumab bereits entsprechende Hinweise gegeben haben, ist das Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit die Standardisierung von Patienteninformation und -aufklärung vor einer Therapie mit Omalizumab.Methoden Auf Grundlage des aktuellen Wissensstandes zur Immunologie der CRSwNP und zu den erwünschten und möglichen unerwünschten Wirkungen von Omalizumab werden Empfehlungen für die Patienteninformation entwickelt.Ergebnisse Basierend auf der internationalen Literatur, der aktuellen Fachinformation und Erfahrungen aus der praktischen Anwendung und den derzeitigen Pharmakovigilanz-Daten hat ein Expertengremium Empfehlungen für die Patienteninformation und -aufklärung zur Anwendung von Omalizumab bei CRSwNP entwickelt und auf dieser Grundlage einen Patienteninformations- und Aufklärungsbogen erstellt.Schlussfolgerung Die Information und Einwilligung des Patienten wird vor der Verordnung bzw. Verabreichung von allen Biologika, damit auch Omalizumab, empfohlen. Das vorliegende Positionspapier enthält wichtige Informationen zur praktischen Umsetzung und einen Vorschlag für eine Patienteninformation.

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), which belongs to the anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides, is characterised by eosinophil-rich granulomatous inflammation and small- to medium-sized vessel vasculitis associated with bronchial asthma and eosinophilia. It sometimes causes severe organ damage, of which myocardial damage is one of the most important for determining the prognosis. A case of EGPA-associated myocarditis that was refractory to glucocorticoid therapy and responded successfully to rituximab (RTX) and mepolizumab (MPZ) combination therapy is presented. A 46-year-old woman was diagnosed with EGPA-associated myocarditis due to pre-existing asthma, eosinophilia, mononeuritis multiplex, and eosinophilic myocarditis by myocardial biopsy. Transthoracic echocardiography showed thickening of the cardiac wall, pericardial effusion, and left ventricular hypokinesis. Although the myocarditis was refractory to methylprednisolone pulse therapy followed by oral high-dose prednisolone, the disease activity reached remission with the successful tapering of glucocorticoid after initiation of the RTX and MPZ combination therapy. Combination therapy with RTX and MPZ can be a good treatment option for EGPA-associated myocarditis for which it is difficult to give intravenous cyclophosphamide due to cardiac dysfunction.

Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) are associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. There are sparse data assessing the real-world impact of biologics on AECRS. Objectives: We sought to determine the impact of type 2‐targeting biologics on the frequency of medication use for AECRS episodes. Methods: Antibiotic and/or systemic corticosteroid courses for AECRS were identified in a retrospective study from November 2015 to February 2020, at a single academic health system. The estimated yearly rates for antibiotic and corticosteroid courses were evaluated before and after initiation of type 2 biologics. Results: One-hundred and sixty-five patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) had received either omalizumab (n = 12), mepolizumab (n = 42), benralizumab (n = 44), dupilumab (n = 61), or reslizumab (n = 6). Seventy percent had CRS with nasal polyps, and 30% had CRS without nasal polyps. All the patients had asthma. When all the biologics were combined, the estimated yearly rate for antibiotics for AECRS decreased from 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12‐1.59) to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.88) with biologic use (49% reduction, p < 0.001). Those with frequent AECRS (three or more courses of antibiotics in the 1 year before biologic use) had a larger degree of reduction, with an estimated yearly rate of 4.15 (95% CI, 3.79‐4.55) to 1.58 (95% CI, 1.06‐2.35) with biologic use (n = 27; 62% reduction; p < 0.001). Within the total cohort, the estimated yearly rate for systemic corticosteroids for AECRS decreased from 1.69 (95% CI, 1.42‐2.02) to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53‐0.88) with biologic use (60% reduction; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Type 2‐targeting biologics reduced medication use for AECRS. This suggested that biologics may be a therapeutic option for patients with frequent AECRS.

A 45-year-old man with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) was treated with oral prednisolone (PSL) (30 mg/day), inhaled corticosteroids, and long-acting beta2-agonists. After confirmation of a PSL-dependent status (8 mg/day), subcutaneous injection with anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody (mepolizumab, 100 mg/month) was performed, and the PSL dose was tapered to 5 mg/day. However, ABPA recurred and proved refractory to oral itraconazole (200 mg/day). Alternative subcutaneous injection therapy with dupilumab (induction dose of 600 mg followed by a maintenance dose of 300 mg/2 weeks) enabled the successful withdrawal of oral PSL without clinical deterioration. This case demonstrates the potential utility of dupilumab for steroid-dependent ABPA via the synergistic suppression of IL-4 and IL-13 compared to monotherapy with anti-IL-5 antibody.

Background: Asthma is characterized by a chronic airway inflammation, usually sustained by type 2 immunity. Bronchial and peripheral eosinophilia are biomarkers for type 2 asthma. Biologicals are the most effective treatment for severe asthma at present. Mepolizumab is an antagonist of interleukin-5 (IL-5), the most relevant cytokine involved in eosinophilia.Objective: This case report evaluated the effectiveness of mepolizumab in two girls with severe eosinophilic non-allergic asthma.Materials and methods: Two female children with severe eosinophilic nonallergic asthma were treated with mepolizumab for two years. Clinical findings, lung function, peripheral eosinophils, asthma control, and bronchial endoscopy were performed.Results: Biologicals reduced the eosinophilia, asthma exacerbations, and improved lung function in both patients. The treatment was also safe and well-tolerated.Conclusion: Mepolizumab represents an effective therapeutic option in the management of severe pediatric asthma.

Benralizumab is an anti-eosinophilic monoclonal antibody that reduces exacerbations and improves lung function for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with eosinophilic inflammation. We evaluated the impact of baseline factors on benralizumab efficacy for patients with severe asthma. This analysis used pooled data from the SIROCCO (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01928771) and CALIMA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01914757) Phase III studies. Patients aged 12–75 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma receiving high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists received benralizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 8 weeks (Q8W, first three doses every 4 weeks (Q4W)), Q4W or placebo. Baseline factors that influenced benralizumab efficacy were evaluated, including oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, nasal polyposis, pre-bronchodilator forced vital capacity (FVC), prior year exacerbations and age at diagnosis. Efficacy outcomes included annual exacerbation rate and change in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s at treatment end relative to placebo. Benralizumab Q8W treatment effect was enhanced with each baseline factor for all patients and those with ≥300 eosinophils·μL−1 relative to the overall population. OCS use, nasal polyposis and FVC, Key baseline factors can aid in identifying patients who may respond to benralizumab http://ow.ly/uPVX30ltHTF

A certain success in the treatment of bronchial asthma is associated with the introduction of monoclonal antibodies into the treatment process. They made it possible to improve the control of the disease. A number of original genetically engineered biological drugs, such as benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab, are currently registered in Russia. In 2020, this list was supplemented by the first Russian biosimilar drug omalizumab – Genolar® (JSC Generium, Russia). High rates of the development of modern medicine are closely related to the use of biosimilars. The prescription of biosimilars today often makes it possible to provide a larger number of patients with modern drugs at lower costs.The aim of the study was a comprehensive pharmacoeconomic assessment of the application of the domestic biosimilar drug omalizumab in the treatment of patients suffering from moderate and severe atopic bronchial asthma.Materials and methods. At the first stage, an information search in the available databases (Cochrane Library, MedLine, Embase, eLIBRARY) was carried out. According to the results obtained, a meta-analysis (Agache I. et al.) was found out; within its framework, the efficacy and safety of the use of several monoclonal antibodies was assessed. Dupilumab was chosen as the reference drug. Pharmacoeconomic analyses were carried out using a “Cost-Minimization Analysis” (CMA) and a “Budget Impact Analysis” (BIA). Taking into account various options of bronchial asthma, the developed algorithm for providing medical care to adult patients with atopic asthma made it possible to assess the costs, including direct medical and indirect costs.Results. The cost analysis demonstrated the advantage of using the Russian biosimilar omalizumab in patients with atopic asthma compared to dupilumab due to financial savings of up to 40%. The Budget Impact Analysis showed that the use of the domestic biosimilar omalizumab, even taking into account the annual increase in the number of patients (8%), will save up to 109,641,409.64 rubles (or 3%) compared to the current practice.Conclusion. The use of the domestic biosimilar omalizumab in patients with moderate to severe atopic bronchial asthma is a clinically effective and economically justified approach to organizing medical care for adult patients in Russia.

Die Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) hat in den Jahren 2019–2021 einige substanzielle Änderungen für das Management von Patienten mit Asthma empfohlen, die auch Schulkinder und Jugendliche betreffen. Eine sehr wesentliche neue Empfehlung ist, dass kurzwirksame Betamimetika (SABA) aus Sicherheitsgründen nur mehr in Kombination mit inhalativen Steroiden (ICS) gegeben werden sollten. Bei Jugendlichen werden GINA-Stufe 1 und 2 zusammengezogen und bei Asthmaproblemen eine Bedarfsinhalation mit niedrig dosierter ICS-Formoterol-Kombination empfohlen. Als Alternative wird die Trennung in Stufe 1 mit Inhalation von SABA und einem ICS bei Bedarf und in Stufe 2 wie bisher die tägliche Inhalation eines ICS und SABA bei Bedarf empfohlen. Dieser Weg wird auch als der bevorzugte bei Kindern von 6 bis 11 Jahren vorgeschlagen. Diese neuen GINA-Empfehlungen wurden jedoch nicht von allen nationalen oder internationalen Leitlinien übernommen, da vor allem für Kinder die Evidenz dafür gering ist. Tiotropium, Mepolizumab und Dupilumab wurden in die Therapie des schweren Asthmas aufgenommen. Kinder mit Asthma erkranken nicht häufiger oder schwerer an COVID-19 als Kinder ohne Asthma. Verschiedene Mechanismen wie ein möglich protektiver Effekt der Typ-2-Inflammation, die antivirale und immunmodulierende Wirkung von ICS und die Niederregulierung von ACE2-Rezeptoren durch die allergische Sensibilisierung könnten dafür verantwortlich sein.

Francesco Menzella,1 Matteo Fontana,1 Carla Galeone,1 Maria D’Amato,2 Giorgio Walter Canonica,3 Giulia Ghidoni,1 Silvia Capobelli,1 Chiara Scelfo,1 Anna Simonazzi,1 Chiara Catellani,1 Patrizia Ruggiero,1 Nicola Facciolongo1 1Pulmonology Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia- IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, 42123, Italy; 2Department of Pulmonology, AO “Dei Colli” Federico II University, Naples, 80131, Italy; 3Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy - Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS - Rozzano, Milan, ItalyCorrespondence: Francesco MenzellaPulmonology Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia- IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, 42123, ItalyEmail francesco.menzella@ausl.re.itBackground: The important progress made on asthma phenotyping encouraged the development of new therapeutic strategies, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and bronchial thermoplasty (BT). The aim of this study is to compare patients diagnosed with severe refractory asthma (SRA) who are currently being treated with omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab or BT and to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments over a 12-month observation period.Methods: Overall, 199 consecutive patients with SRA were included. The cohort was selected referring to the eligibility criteria for all available biologics and BT.Results: Among 32 patients treated with benralizumab, we found a 16.7% reduction in hospitalizations, a 66.6% reduction in exacerbations (p = 0.0001) and the greater improvement in FEV1 (+ 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Among omalizumab group (54 patients), there was a 85.7% (p = 0.012) reduction in hospitalizations and a 88.8% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. In the mepolizumab group (83 patients), we found a 89.5% (p = 0.02) reduction in hospitalizations and a 92.1% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. BT subgroup (30 patients) showed a 93.7% (p = 0.001) reduction in hospitalizations and a 73.5% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. The best results in terms of OCS sparing effect were obtained by BT (- 76%, p < 0.0001) and mepolizumab (- 90.2%, p = 0.002). Omalizumab showed the highest percentage of super responder patients.Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare all marketed mAbs with BT, ending in more comprehensive and applicable results to clinical practice. All biologics, to varying degrees, reduced hospitalizations, exacerbations, and OCS use. The starting point for patients in the BT group was worse regarding hospitalizations, exacerbations and OCS, but despite this, even this non-pharmacological option obtained positive results, comparable to biologics.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, bronchial thermoplasty, oral corticosteroids, exacerbations

Adverse drug reactions involving the skin are commonly known as drug eruptions. Severe drug eruption may cause severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs), which are considered to be fatal and life-threatening, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). Although cases are relatively rare, approximately 2% of hospitalized patients are affected by SCARs. There is an incidence of 2 to 7 cases/million per year of SJS/TEN and 1/1000 to 1/10,000 exposures to offending agents result in DRESS. However, the mortality rate of severe drug eruptions can reach up to 50%. SCARs represent a real medical emergency, and early identification and proper management are critical to survival. The common pathogenesis of severe drug eruptions includes genetic linkage with HLA- and non-HLA-genes, drug-specific T cell-mediated cytotoxicity, T cell receptor restriction, and cytotoxicity mechanisms. A multidisciplinary approach is required for acute management. Immediate withdrawal of potentially causative drugs and specific supportive treatment is of great importance. Immunoglobulins, systemic corticosteroids, and cyclosporine A are the most frequently used treatments for SCARs; additionally, new biologics and plasma exchange are reasonable strategies to reduce mortality. Although there are many treatment methods for severe drug eruption, controversies remain regarding the timing and dosage of drug eruption. Types, dosages, and indications of new biological agents, such as tumor necrosis factor antagonists, mepolizumab, and omalizumab, are still under exploration. This review summarizes the clinical characteristics, risk factors, pathogenesis, and treatment strategies of severe drug eruption to guide clinical management.

Objective To provide evidence-based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV), including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Methods Clinical questions regarding the treatment and management of AAV were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format (47 for GPA/MPA, 34 for EGPA). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 26 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for GPA/MPA, and 15 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for EGPA. This guideline provides recommendations for remission induction and maintenance therapy as well as adjunctive treatment strategies in GPA, MPA, and EGPA. These recommendations include the use of rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in severe GPA and MPA and the use of mepolizumab in nonsevere EGPA. All recommendations are conditional due in part to the lack of multiple randomized controlled trials and/or low-quality evidence supporting the recommendations. Conclusion This guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation for the management of AAV and provides guidance to health care professionals on how to treat these diseases.

Moritz Z Kayser,1 Nora Drick,1 Katrin Milger,2,3 Jan Fuge,1,4 Nikolaus Kneidinger,2,3 Stephanie Korn,5 Roland Buhl,6 Jürgen Behr,2,3 Tobias Welte,1,4 Hendrik Suhling1 1Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; 2Department of Medicine V, University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany; 3Comprehensive Pneumology Center-Munich (CPC‐M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany; 4Biomedical Research in Endstage and Obstructive Lung Disease Hannover (BREATH), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Hannover, Germany; 5Clinical Research Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Mainz, Germany; 6Pulmonary Department, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, GermanyCorrespondence: Moritz Z KayserDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Lower Saxony, GermanyTel +49 0511-532-3531Fax +49 511-532-161108Email kayser.moritz@mh-hannover.dePurpose: Treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) has been revolutionized by the development of monoclonal antibodies targeting underlying immunological pathways of eosinophilic asthma. Two of the most frequently used antibodies in clinical practice are mepolizumab, targeting interleukin (IL) 5 and benralizumab, targeting the IL5 receptor alpha. The comparative treatment efficacy of these antibodies remains unclear, particularly regarding long-term outcomes.Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective study, we included 123 patients treated with mepolizumab and 64 patients treated with benralizumab for 12 months at one of three study sites in Germany. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. Endpoints were changes in pulmonary function (PF), exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and dose, asthma control test (ACT) score and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels.Results: Both mepolizumab and benralizumab led to significant improvements in PF with an increase in median forced expiratory volume (FEV1) after 12 months from 59% to 74% for mepolizumab and 63% to 72% for benralizumab. Treatment also led to significant improvements in ACT scores after 12 months (mepolizumab: 13 [interquartile range (IQR) 9– 17] to 19 [IQR 15– 23]; benralizumab: 12 [IQR 9– 16] to 22 [IQR 16– 25]) as well as a reduction of mean OCS dose (mepolizumab 8 mg [IQR 5– 12.5 mg] median prednisolone equivalent at baseline to 5 mg [IQR 3– 7.5 mg]; benralizumab 7.5 mg [IQR 5– 15 mg] to 5 mg [IQR 2– 10 mg]). The exacerbation rates were reduced significantly, irrespective of the treatment. Overall, changes were similar after 6 and 12 months of therapy.Conclusion: Both mepolizumab and benralizumab are highly effective in the long-term treatment of SEA, with no clinically relevant differences in outcomes after 12 months of therapy. In both groups, improvements were similar after 6 and 12 months of therapy, underlining the feasibility of early treatment evaluation.Keywords: severe eosinophilic asthma, asthma control, lung, treatment response, interleukin-5, interleukin-5-receptor

Background Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are the most common respiratory diseases, presenting overlapping prevalence with age. Mepolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5. In major randomized clinical trials, this antibody reportedly reduced the circulating eosinophil count, exacerbation rate, and oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, data regarding the efficacy of mepolizumab in elderly patients with asthma and overlapping COPD are limited. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. Elderly patients (age ≥65 years) administered mepolizumab between August 2016 and March 2019 were enrolled and the effects of mepolizumab on the eosinophil level, exacerbation numbers, OCS dosage, and lung functions were assessed. We compared treatment responses in patients with asthma and COPD overlap (ACO) with responses observed in patients with severe asthma alone. Adverse events were also evaluated. Results Twenty patients (10 men and 10 women), with a mean age of 77.5 ± 1.3 years, were included. Mepolizumab significantly reduced the blood eosinophil count, as well as significantly decreased clinically significant exacerbation, in both populations. The OCS dosage was significantly reduced in patients treated receiving maintenance OCS therapy. However, mepolizumab did not improve lung function in either population, and no significant difference was observed in treatment responses between patients with asthma alone and ACO. Conclusions Mepolizumab may be effective in elderly patients with eosinophilic asthma and ACO.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: A small portion of the asthmatic population (3.6%) has severe asthma (SA), presenting high morbimortality rates and demanding more financial resources than other asthmatic populations. The use of immunobiological therapy is an effective tool in controlling symptoms, decreasing the number of exacerbations, and reducing the use of systemic corticosteroids in these patients. In Brazil, epidemiological data regarding this asthmatic population using immunobiologicals and their evolution are scarce. METHODS: This is an observational, analytical, cross-sectional, and retrospective study. The sample consisted of adult patients with SA in follow-up at the pulmonology service of the Complexo Hospital de Clínicas of the Federal University of Paraná, from January 2011 to August 2019. The analyzed variables were as follows: the number of exacerbations that required hospitalization in the previous year, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and asthma control test (ACT) scores before and after the start of immunobiological therapy. RESULTS: We studied 20 patients with SA using omalizumab or mepolizumab. We observed an increase in the mean ACT score of 4.8 points, a nonsignificant reduction in the number of exacerbations that required hospitalization, and a slight improvement in the FEV1. Regarding the patients using chronic systemic corticosteroid therapy, 14.2% (n=1) of patients had the medication discontinued and 57% (n=4) of patients had the dose reduced by half. CONCLUSION: The use of omalizumab and mepolizumab as additional therapy in SA provided a significant improvement in the ACT and allowed the dose reduction of systemic corticosteroids, without significant improvement in FEV1 and in the frequency of severe exacerbations.