Search

Background: In 2004, the landmark Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study demonstrated that most patients can achieve asthma control through sustained treatment and that adding a long-acting β 2 -adrenoreceptor agonist to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is more effective than ICS alone in this regard. Definitions of asthma control have since evolved, and the consequent implications for the GOAL study findings are unclear., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol and fluticasone propionate alone in achieving and maintaining asthma control, as derived from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2016 report., Methods: In total, 3416 patients were stratified by prior medication (ICS-naive [stratum 1], low-dose ICS [stratum 2], or medium-dose ICS [stratum 3]) and randomized to receive fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone propionate. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled or partly controlled asthma; secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma. Control was evaluated during the last 4 weeks of each dose titration., Results: In all strata, more patients achieved well-controlled or partly controlled asthma with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol vs fluticasone propionate alone (stratum 1: 91% vs 85%; P = .003; stratum 2: 86% vs 82%; P = .07; and stratum 3: 76% vs 66%; P < .001), as well as patients with well-controlled asthma (stratum 1: 64% vs 56%; P = .005; stratum 2: 59% vs 41%; P < .001; and stratum 3: 40% vs 22%; P < .001)., Conclusion: A markedly higher proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma in each stratum achieved control according to GINA 2016 criteria compared with the original study criteria. The proportion of patients achieving control remained greater with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol than with fluticasone propionate alone., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Three anti-IL-5 pathway-directed therapies are approved for use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA); however, no head-to-head comparison data are available., Objective: We sought to compare the efficacy of licensed doses of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab in patients with SEA, according to baseline blood eosinophil counts., Methods: This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used data from a Cochrane review and independent searches. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in patients aged 12 years or greater with SEA. End points included annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire score and FEV 1 . An ITC was performed in patients with Asthma Control Questionnaire scores of 1.5 or greater and stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count., Results: Eleven studies were included. All treatments significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in all blood eosinophil count subgroups. Mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 34% to 45% versus benralizumab across subgroups (rate ratio ≥400 cells/μL: 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35-0.87]; ≥300 cells/μL: 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37-0.99]; and ≥150 cells/μL: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.89]; all P < .05) and by 45% versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/μL or greater subgroup (rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]; P = .007). Asthma control was significantly improved with mepolizumab versus benralizumab (all subgroups: P < .05) and versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/μL or greater subgroup (P = .004). Benralizumab significantly improved lung function versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/μL or greater subgroup (P = .025)., Conclusions: This ITC of the licensed doses suggests that mepolizumab was associated with significantly greater improvements in clinically significant exacerbations and asthma control compared with reslizumab or benralizumab in patients with similar blood eosinophil counts., (Copyright © 2018 GlaxoSmithKline. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials of patients with asthma, but real-world data are needed., Objective: To assess outcomes after omalizumab initiation in patients with asthma in a real-world setting., Methods: Patients aged 12 years and older with allergic asthma who were candidates for omalizumab on the basis of physician-assessed need were enrolled in a US-based, prospective, single-arm, 48-week multicenter study, the Prospective Observational Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab. Monthly assessments included exacerbations, health care utilization, asthma control test (ACT), and adverse events. At baseline, 6 months, and end of study, biomarkers (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide) were collected and spirometry performed., Results: Of 806 enrollees, 801 (99.4%) received omalizumab and 622 (77.2%) completed the study. The exacerbation rate significantly improved from a mean of 3.00 ± 3.28 in the 12 months before baseline to 0.78 ± 1.37 through month 12 (P < .001) and was similar in adults and adolescents; there was a reduction of 81.9% in the percentage of patients with 1 or more hospitalizations. Lung function remained generally unchanged. A mean improvement of 4.4 ± 4.9 in ACT scores was observed. Eighty-seven percent of patients were responders on the basis of clinical improvement in exacerbations, lung function, or ACT scores. Baseline biomarker status was associated with ACT scores and lung function improvement, but the magnitude of this improvement was not clinically relevant. No new safety signals emerged., Conclusions: Omalizumab initiation in patients with asthma resulted in improved exacerbation rates, reduced hospitalizations, and improved ACT scores compared with pretreatment values, regardless of biomarker status., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The aim of this study was Describe the latest evidence related to the concept of clinical remission in patients with severe asthma, focusing on the lights and shadows of this concept., Recent Findings: The idea of clinical remission in severe asthma patients brings about a significant shift in the way asthma is treated and managed. Although there has yet to be unanimous agreement among various scientific societies on the precise definition, this concept can be extremely useful in advancing the treatment of the disease., Summary: Asthma is a common respiratory condition that affects more than 300 million people globally. It has variable symptoms and severity levels, with about 10% of patients experiencing severe asthma. While there have been advancements in treatment, severe asthma poses significant challenges. Recent approaches have focused on achieving clinical remission, which goes beyond symptom control to address underlying inflammation and biological processes. Clinical remission criteria include the absence of symptoms, reduced medication usage, and normalized inflammatory markers. Various biologic therapies show promise, with some patients achieving remission. However, remission's definition varies globally, hindering standardization and a valid comparison. Standardizing remission criteria and refining predictive factors are crucial for effective asthma management. Overall, achieving clinical remission offers hope for improved long-term outcomes in severe asthma patients., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Despite currently available treatments, many asthma patients remain inadequately controlled, but identifying distinct patient populations (phenotypes/endotypes) may optimize their management. This review discusses some of the controversies and opportunities for improved disease control in severe asthma., Recent Findings: Currently approved anti-immunoglobulin E and anti-interleukin 5 biologics, which target specific pathways instead of using a 'one size fits all' strategy, are efficacious and well tolerated therapies for severe asthma. The appropriate use of these biologics, and of those in development (e.g., benralizumab and dupilumab), should be aided by further understanding of asthma phenotypes and endotypes, utilizing appropriate biomarkers.Oral corticosteroids are often added as maintenance therapy for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, but their use is associated with significant adverse effects and should be considered a last option. The true cost of this therapy, including the cost of morbidities associated with its use, remains to be determined.Severe asthma in pediatrics poses a unique opportunity for possible prevention strategies and the potential for primary prevention. Although several avenues for primary prevention are being explored and are out of the scope of this review, we focus our discussion on the use of omalizumab, which has been recently explored in clinical trials., Summary: Appropriate use of biologics in severe asthma should be supported by further understanding of biomarkers predicting response to targeted therapy. Because of their association with significant adverse effects, add-on oral corticosteroids should be considered a last treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. Finally, severe asthma in pediatrics poses a unique opportunity for potential prevention strategies.

Purpose of Review: The aim is to update the information currently available for the use of biologics in severe asthma in children, in order to facilitate their prescription as far as possible., Recent Findings: The appearance of biologics for the treatment of severe asthma has meant a revolutionary change in the therapeutic approach to this disease. Currently, five biologics have been approved for severe asthma in children and/or adolescents by the regulatory agencies: omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and tezepelumab. But despite their positive results in terms of efficacy, there are still relevant points of debate that should induce caution when selecting the most appropriate biologic in a child with severe asthma. Indeed, safety is essential and, for several of the existing treatments, the availability of medium-term to long-term data in this regard is scarce., Summary: The use of biologics can facilitate the therapeutic paradigm shift from pleiotropic treatments to personalized medicine. However, the choice of the most appropriate biologics remains a pending issue. On the other hand, to the extent that several of the biologics have been available for a relatively short time, the most robust evidence in terms of efficacy and safety in children is that of omalizumab., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Little is known about central nervous system (CNS) responses to emotional stimuli in asthma. Nitric oxide in exhaled breath (FE NO ) is elevated in asthma due to allergic immune processes, but endogenous nitric oxide is also known to modulate CNS activity. We measured fMRI blood oxygen-dependent (BOLD) brain activation to negative (blood-injection-injury themes) and neutral films in 31 participants (15 with asthma). Regions-of-interest analysis was performed on key areas relevant to central adaptive control, threat processing, or salience networks, with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), amygdala, ventral striatum, ventral tegmentum, and periaqueductal gray, as well as top-down modulation of emotion, with ventrolateral and ventromedial PFC. Both groups showed less BOLD deactivation from fixation cross-baseline in the left anterior insula and bilateral ventromedial PFC for negative than neutral films, and for an additional number of areas, including the fusiform gyrus, for film versus recovery phases. Less deactivation during films followed by less recovery from deactivation was found in asthma compared to healthy controls. Changes in PCO 2 did not explain these findings. FE NO was positively related to BOLD activation in general, but more pronounced in healthy controls and more likely in neutral film processing. Thus, asthma is associated with altered processing of film stimuli across brain regions not limited to central adaptive control, threat processing, or salience networks. Higher levels of NO appear to facilitate CNS activity, but only in healthy controls, possibly due to allergy's masking effects on FE NO ., (© 2024 Society for Psychophysiological Research.)

Purpose of Review: Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control., Recent Findings: Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control., Summary: Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT)-associated adverse events (AEs) limit its usage in the management of allergic diseases. The monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) and AIT have complementary actions. However, no consensus has been reached on whether their combination could exert superior efficacy and safety., Objective: To evaluate whether the combination of AIT with omalizumab is superior to AIT alone in treating allergic diseases., Methods: The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of omalizumab combined with AIT (omalizumab + AIT) versus AIT alone. A random-effect model was established to estimate outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: A total of 11 eligible RCTs (involving 901 patients) were screened out for the meta-analysis. According to a pooled analysis, omalizumab + AIT significantly increased the number of patients achieving the target maintenance dose (TMD) and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to allergens (odds ratio [OR] = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.33-4.44; p = 0.004; I 2  = 35%, and OR = 6.77; 95% CI: 2.10-21.80; p = 0.001; I 2  = 36%, respectively). Similarly, individuals receiving the combination therapy reported significantly fewer episodes of severe systemic AEs than AIT alone (OR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.18-0.59; p = 0.0003; I 2  = 0%). Meanwhile, the improvements in symptom severity score (mean difference [MD] = -0.26), rescue medication daily means score (MD = -0.14), and number of patients consuming epinephrine in AIT (OR = 0.20) were all more evident than those in AIT alone., Conclusion: Omalizumab + AIT can significantly enhance the efficacy and safety of AIT by increasing TMD and SU to allergens, while decreasing severe systemic AEs., (© 2023 ARS‐AAOA, LLC.)