The effect of tezepelumab on airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol in asthma (UPSTREAM)

Super-Responders to Biologic Treatment in Type 2-High Severe Asthma: Passing Fad or a Meaningful Phenotype?

Defining super-response to biologic treatment is a major concern in severe asthma. Although many definitions have been proposed, there is still a gap between the clinical perception of the super-response and a standardized classification. The current definition of super-response mainly relies on several clinical features, while many aspects of severe asthma inflammation and lung function are still poorly considered. Furthermore, many criteria of severe asthma super-response overlap with those of the clinical remission, leaving room for possible misclassifications. In this context, identifying the correct trajectory linking these 2 aspects of type 2-high severe asthma could help clinicians to understand which factors can predict a greater response to biologic therapies. In this paper, we review various aspects of super-response assessment, proposing some new criteria for its definition as well as new perspectives on its relationship with severe asthma clinical remission.

Targeting interleukin-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin pathways for novel pulmonary therapeutics in asthma and COPD

Interleukin-33 (IL-33) and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) are alarmins that are released upon airway epithelial injury from insults such as viruses and cigarette smoke, and play critical roles in the activation of immune cell populations such as mast cells, eosinophils and group 2 innate lymphoid cells. Both cytokines were previously understood to primarily drive type 2 (T2) inflammation, but there is emerging evidence for a role for these alarmins to additionally mediate non-T2 inflammation, with recent clinical trial data in asthma and COPD cohorts with non-T2 inflammation providing support. Currently available treatments for both COPD and asthma provide symptomatic relief with disease control, improving lung function and reducing exacerbation rates; however, there still remains an unmet need for further improving lung function and reducing exacerbations, particularly for those not responsive to currently available treatments. The epithelial cytokines/alarmins are involved in exacerbations; biologics targeting TSLP and IL-33 have been shown to reduce exacerbations in moderate-to-severe asthma, either in a broad population or in specific subgroups, respectively. For COPD, while there is clinical evidence for IL-33 blockade impacting exacerbations in COPD, clinical data from anti-TSLP therapies is awaited. Clinical data to date support an acceptable safety profile for patients with airway diseases for both anti-IL-33 and anti-TSLP antibodies in development. We examine the roles of IL-33 and TSLP, their potential use as drug targets, and the evidence for target patient populations for COPD and asthma, together with ongoing and future trials focused on these targets.

Current summary of clinical studies on anti-TSLP antibody, Tezepelumab, in asthma

Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is an epithelial cell-derived cytokine that plays a vital role in the induction of type 2 inflammation via both innate and acquired immune cascades. Tezepelumab, a human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that inhibits the binding of TSLP to the TSLP receptor, is the latest biologic for asthma. To evaluate the efficacy and mechanism of tezepelumab in asthma, the PATHWAY, NAVIGATOR, NOZOMI, UPSTREAM, CASCADE, SOURCE, and DESTINATION studies have been conducted. These results suggested that tezepelumab is a broad-target biologic, which is expected to be effective in patients with poorly controlled moderate to severe asthma regardless of the phenotype, although its efficacy in oral corticosteroids-dependent asthma, biological mechanism in non-type 2 phenotype, and long-term safety remain unknown. In this review, we summarize the results of clinical trials of tezepelumab in asthma and discuss the differences between tezepelumab and other biologics.

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

Biologics and airway remodeling in severe asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease resulting in airflow obstruction, which in part can become irreversible to conventional therapies, defining the concept of airway remodeling. The introduction of biologics in severe asthma has led in some patients to the complete normalization of previously considered irreversible airflow obstruction. This highlights the need to distinguish a "fixed" airflow obstruction due to structural changes unresponsive to current therapies, from a "reversible" one as demonstrated by lung function normalization during biological therapies not previously obtained even with high-dose systemic glucocorticoids. The mechanisms by which exposure to environmental factors initiates the inflammatory responses that trigger airway remodeling are still incompletely understood. Alarmins represent epithelial-derived cytokines that initiate immunologic events leading to inflammatory airway remodeling. Biological therapies can improve airflow obstruction by addressing these airway inflammatory changes. In addition, biologics might prevent and possibly even revert "fixed" remodeling due to structural changes. Hence, it appears clinically important to separate the therapeutic effects (early and late) of biologics as a new paradigm to evaluate the effects of these drugs and future treatments on airway remodeling in severe asthma.

Human Lung Mast Cells: Therapeutic Implications in Asthma

Mast cells are strategically located in different compartments of the lung in asthmatic patients. These cells are widely recognized as central effectors and immunomodulators in different asthma phenotypes. Mast cell mediators activate a wide spectrum of cells of the innate and adaptive immune system during airway inflammation. Moreover, these cells modulate the activities of several structural cells (i.e., fibroblasts, airway smooth muscle cells, bronchial epithelial and goblet cells, and endothelial cells) in the human lung. These findings indicate that lung mast cells and their mediators significantly contribute to the immune induction of airway remodeling in severe asthma. Therapies targeting mast cell mediators and/or their receptors, including monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, IL-4/IL-13, IL-5/IL-5Rα, IL-4Rα, TSLP, and IL-33, have been found safe and effective in the treatment of different phenotypes of asthma. Moreover, agonists of inhibitory receptors expressed by human mast cells (Siglec-8, Siglec-6) are under investigation for asthma treatment. Increasing evidence suggests that different approaches to depleting mast cells show promising results in severe asthma treatment. Novel treatments targeting mast cells can presumably change the course of the disease and induce drug-free remission in bronchial asthma. Here, we provide an overview of current and promising treatments for asthma that directly or indirectly target lung mast cells.

Challenges in severe asthma: Do we need new drugs or new biomarkers?

Severe asthma is a complex, heterogenous airway condition. There have been significant advances in severe asthma management in the past decade using monoclonal antibody therapies that target the inflammatory component of the disease. Patient selection has been paramount for the success of these biologicals, leading to significant interest in biomarkers to guide treatment. Some severe asthmatics remain suboptimally controlled despite trials of biologicals and many of these patients still require chronic systemic corticosteroids. New therapeutics are currently in development to address this unmet need. However, whether these patients could be better treated by using novel biomarkers that inform selection among currently available biologics, and that objectively measure disease control is unclear. In this review, we examine the currently used biomarkers that guide severe asthma management and emerging biomarkers that may improve asthma therapy in the future.

Eosinophilic inflammation: An Appealing Target for Pharmacologic Treatments in Severe Asthma

Severe asthma is characterized by different endotypes driven by complex pathologic mechanisms. In most patients with both allergic and non-allergic asthma, predominant eosinophilic airway inflammation is present. Given the central role of eosinophilic inflammation in the pathophysiology of most cases of severe asthma and considering that severe eosinophilic asthmatic patients respond partially or poorly to corticosteroids, in recent years, research has focused on the development of targeted anti-eosinophil biological therapies; this review will focus on the unique and particular biology of the eosinophil, as well as on the current knowledge about the pathobiology of eosinophilic inflammation in asthmatic airways. Finally, current and prospective anti-eosinophil therapeutic strategies will be discussed, examining the reason why eosinophilic inflammation represents an appealing target for the pharmacological treatment of patients with severe asthma.

New views on the diagnosis and treatment of asthma in children

The medical and social significance of the problem of asthma in childhood is extremely high. Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) for the management of this disease has been known since 1993, based on the best information available to date. Global Initiative for Asthma has now been updated — the 2022 GINA revision. GINA 2022, in particular, considers the use of a single inhaler (inhaled glucocorticoid and formoterol) both to relieve symptoms and to provide basic therapy, emphasizes the importance of having a written plan of action for asthma. Today, children with asthma are thought to have a similar risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 as children without asthma. In the context of a coronavirus pandemic, it is essential for asthma patients to continue their proper treatment with good control of clinical symptoms. A new aspect is that when COVID-19 is confirmed or suspected, the use of nebulizers should be avoided where possible due to the risk of transmitting the infection to other patients, family members and healthcare professionals. Although spirometry monitoring is indeed an important tool, in a pandemic it is recommended to limit it to patients in whom the results of this study may affect treatment. It is important to follow the recommendations of infection control, take precautions to reduce the risk of infection. Recent developments in asthma treatment strategies offer biological drugs as an alternative. Monoclonal antibodies, drugs targeting IgE-dependent mechanisms, IL-5, IL-4, IL-13, IL-33, anti-alarmin agents, etc. are considered. The focus of special attention in the optimal use of biological therapy for asthma is proper immune endotyping, development of appropriate biomarkers, determination of the main immunological mechanism for choosing the right targeted therapy. Much attention is now being paid to the molecular aspects of asthma. In-depth knowledge of allergenic structures has led to molecular component diagnostics, which has led to a better understanding of patient sensitization. Molecular-oriented diagnostics is used to determine the best approach to allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Biologic Therapies in Pediatric Asthma

Undeniably, childhood asthma is a multifactorial and heterogeneous chronic condition widespread in children. Its management, especially of the severe form refractory to standard therapy remains challenging. Over the past decades, the development of biologic agents and their subsequent approval has provided an advanced and very promising treatment alternative, eventually directing toward a successful precision medicine approach. The application of currently approved add-on treatments for severe asthma in children, namely omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab have been shown to be effective in terms of asthma control and exacerbation rate. However, to date, information is still lacking regarding its long-term use. As a result, data are frequently extrapolated from adult studies. Thus, the selection of the appropriate biologic agent, the potential predictors of good asthma response, and the long-term outcome in the pediatric population are still to be further investigated. The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the current status of the latest evidence about all licensed monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that have emerged and been applied to the field of asthma management. The innovative future targets are also briefly discussed.

Targeting TSLP in Asthma

Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is an epithelial cell-derived cytokine implicated in the initiation and persistence of inflammatory pathways in asthma. Released in response to a range of epithelial insults (eg, allergens, viruses, bacteria, pollutants, and smoke), TSLP initiates multiple downstream innate and adaptive immune responses involved in asthma inflammation. Inhibition of TSLP is postulated to represent a novel approach to treating the diverse phenotypes and endotypes of asthma. Tezepelumab, the TSLP inhibitor farthest along in clinical development, is a human monoclonal antibody (IgG2λ) that binds specifically to TSLP, preventing interactions with its heterodimeric receptor. Results of recently published phase 2 and 3 studies, reviewed in this article, provide evidence of the safety and efficacy of tezepelumab that builds on initial findings. Tezepelumab is safe, well tolerated, and provides clinically meaningful improvements in asthma control, including reduced incidence of exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with severe asthma. Clinical benefits were associated with reductions in levels of a broad spectrum of cytokines (eg, interleukin [IL]-5, IL-13) and baseline biomarkers (eg, blood eosinophils, immunoglobulin [Ig]E, fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) and were observed across a range of severe asthma phenotypes (ie, eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic). These data strengthen the notion that anti-TSLP elicits broad inhibitory effects on pathways that are key to asthma inflammation rather than on narrower inhibition of individual downstream factors. This review presents the rationale for targeting TSLP to treat asthma, as well as the clinical effects of TSLP blockade on asthma outcomes, biomarkers of disease activity, airway inflammation, lung physiology, and patient symptoms.

Investigational approaches for unmet need in severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Molecular antibodies (mAb) targeting inflammatory mediators are effective in T2-high asthma. The recent approval of Tezepelumab presents a novel mAb therapeutic option for those with T2-low asthma.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss a number of clinical problems pertinent to severe asthma that are less responsive to current therapies, such as persistent airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness. We discuss selected investigational approaches, including a number of candidate therapies under investigation in two adaptive platform trials currently in progress, with particular reference to this unmet need, as well as their potential in phenotypes such as neutrophilic asthma and obese asthma, which may or may not overlap with a T2-high phenotype.

EXPERT OPINION

The application of discrete targeting approaches to T2-low molecular phenotypes, including those phenotypes in which inflammation may not arise within the airway, has yielded variable results to date. Endotypes associated with T2-low asthma are likely to be diverse but await validation. Investigational therapeutic approaches must, likewise, be diverse if the goal of remission is to become attainable for all those living with asthma.

Targeting Downstream Type 2 Cytokines or Upstream Epithelial Alarmins for Severe Asthma

Biologics, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, targeting downstream IgE, cytokines IL-5, and IL-4/13, respectively, have shown promising effects in terms of reduction in annualized asthma exacerbation rates (AER), oral corticosteroid-sparing effects, improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and improved Asthma Control Questionnaire scores. However, despite these welcome advances, approximately 30% of patients with severe asthma receiving biologics tailored to their specific downstream type 2 biomarkers, including total IgE, peripheral blood eosinophils, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide, do not experience meaningful improvements in their AER. Instead of blocking downstream cytokines, targeting upstream epithelial alarmins, including IL-33, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, and IL-25, has been proposed to tackle the immunologic heterogeneity of asthma. This review article aims to pragmatically summarize the latest key clinical data on antialarmin therapies in severe asthma and put these findings into context with regard to currently available downstream cytokine blockers.

Baseline type 2 biomarker levels and response to tezepelumab in severe asthma

Background

Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks activity of thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). In the phase IIb PATHWAY study (NCT02054130), tezepelumab significantly reduced annualized asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) versus placebo in adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma. We evaluated the effects of tezepelumab in reducing type 2 (T2) inflammatory biomarker levels in the PATHWAY population, and the relationship between baseline T2 biomarker levels and AAER.

Methods

Adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma (n = 550) were randomized to tezepelumab (70 mg or 210 mg every 4 weeks, or 280 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 52 weeks. Blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and serum total immunoglobulin (Ig)E, interleukin (IL)‐5, IL‐13, periostin, thymus and activation‐regulated chemokine (TARC), and TSLP were measured at baseline and over 52 weeks. AAERs were analyzed by baseline threshold (high/low) biomarker levels.

Results

Positive correlations were observed between T2 inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophil count, FeNO, IL‐5, IL‐13 and periostin) at baseline. At Week 52, treatment with tezepelumab 210 mg reduced all biomarker levels measured from baseline versus placebo. Exacerbations were reduced by 55–83% in the pooled tezepelumab cohort versus placebo, irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, FeNO, or serum total IgE, IL‐5, IL‐13, periostin, TARC, or TSLP, when these biomarkers were assessed individually.

Conclusion

At baseline, positive correlations between specific T2 inflammatory biomarkers were observed. Tezepelumab reduced multiple T2 inflammatory biomarkers, which indicates decreased airway inflammation, and reduced exacerbations irrespective of baseline T2 biomarker profiles in patients with severe asthma.

Dupilumab and tezepelumab in severe refractory asthma: new opportunities

Bronchial asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition with increasing prevalence worldwide that may present as heterogeneous phenotypes defined by the T2-mediated pattern of airway inflammation T2-high and T2-low asthma. Severe refractory asthma includes a subset of asthmatic patients who fail to control their disease despite maximal therapy and represent a group of patients needing marked resource utilization and hence may be eligible to add-on biological therapies. Among the new biologics, we focused our attention on two monoclonal antibodies: dupilumab, exerting a dual blockade of cytokine (interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13) signaling; and tezepelumab, acting at a higher level preventing the binding of thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) to its receptor, thus blocking TSLP, IL-25, and IL-33 signaling, hence modulating airway T2 immune responses. With their different mechanisms of action, these two biologics represent important options to provide an enhanced personalized treatment regimen. Several clinical trials have been conducted testing the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in severe refractory asthmatic patients showing improvements in lung function, asthma control, and reducing exacerbations. Similar results were reported with tezepelumab that, differently from dupilumab, acts irrespectively on eosinophilic or non-eosinophilic phenotype. In this review, we provide an overview of the most important highlights regarding dupilumab and tezepelumab characteristics and mechanism of action with a critical review of the principal results of clinical (Phase II and III) studies concluded and those still in progress.

Novel Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma Endotypes

Severe asthma comprises several heterogeneous phenotypes, underpinned by complex pathomechanisms known as endotypes. The latter are driven by intercellular networks mediated by molecular components which can be targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, currently available antibodies are directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13), as well as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and other alarmins. Among these therapeutic strategies, the best choice should be made according to the phenotypic/endotypic features of each patient with severe asthma, who can thus respond with significant clinical and functional improvements. Conversely, very poor options so far characterize the experimental pipelines referring to the perspective biological management of non-type 2 severe asthma, which thereby needs to be the focus of future thorough research.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

Asthma is a disease with high incidence and prevalence, and its severe form accounts for approximately 10% of asthmatics. Over the last decade, the increasing knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the disease allowed the development of biological drugs capable of sufficiently controlling symptoms and reducing the use of systemic steroids. The best-known mechanisms are those pertaining to type 2 inflammation, for which drugs were developed and studied. Those biological treatments affect crucial points of bronchial inflammation. Among the mechanisms explored, there were IgE (Omalizumab), interleukin 5 (Mepolizumab and Reslizumab), interleukin 5 receptor alpha (Benralizumab) and interleukin 4/13 receptor (Dupilumab). Under investigation and expected to be soon commercialized is the monoclonal antibody blocking the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (Tezepelumab). Seemingly under study and promising, are anti-interleukin-33 (itepekimab) and anti-suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 (astegolimab). With this study, we want to provide an overview of these drugs, paying particular attention to their mechanism of action, the main endpoints reached in clinical trials, the main results obtained in real life and some unclear points regarding their usage.

Holy Grail: the journey towards disease modification in asthma

At present, there is no cure for asthma, and treatment typically involves therapies that prevent or reduce asthma symptoms, without modifying the underlying disease. A “disease-modifying” treatment can be classed as able to address the pathogenesis of a disease, preventing progression or leading to a long-term reduction in symptoms. Such therapies have been investigated and approved in other indications, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis and immunoglobulin E-mediated allergic disease. Asthma's heterogeneous nature has made the discovery of similar therapies in asthma more difficult, although novel therapies (e.g. biologics) may have the potential to exhibit disease-modifying properties. To investigate the disease-modifying potential of a treatment, study design considerations can be made, including: appropriate end-point selection, length of trial, age of study population (key differences between adults/children in physiology, pathology and drug metabolism) and comorbidities in the patient population. Potential future focus areas for disease-modifying treatments in asthma include early assessments (e.g. to detect patterns of remodelling) and interventions for patients genetically susceptible to asthma, interventions to prevent virally induced asthma and therapies to promote a healthy microbiome. This review explores the pathophysiology of asthma, the disease-modifying potential of current asthma therapies and the direction future research may take to achieve full disease remission or prevention.

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous disease, which currently has no cure; this review explores the disease-modifying potential of asthma therapies and the direction future research may take to achieve disease remission or prevention.https://bit.ly/31AxYou

House dust mite sensitization and exposure affects bronchial epithelial anti-microbial response to viral stimuli in patients with asthma

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.

Biologics in Asthma: A Molecular Perspective to Precision Medicine

Recent developments in therapeutic strategies have provided alternatives to corticosteroids as the cornerstone treatment for managing airway inflammation in asthma. The past two decades have witnessed a tremendous boost in the development of anti-cytokine monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the management of severe asthma. Novel biologics that target eosinophilic inflammation (or type 2, T2 inflammation) have been the most successful at treating asthma symptoms, though there are a few in the drug development pipeline for treating non-eosinophilic or T2-low asthma. There has been significant improvement in clinical outcomes for asthmatics treated with currently available monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E, anti-interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α subunit, anti-IL-5, anti-IL-5Rα, anti-IL-6, anti-IL-33, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). Despite these initiatives in precision medicine for asthma therapy, a significant disease burden remains, as evident from modest reduction of exacerbation rates, i.e., approximately 40-60%. There are numerous studies that highlight predictors of good responses to these biologics, but few have focused on those who fail to respond adequately despite targeted treatment. Phenotyping asthmatics based on blood eosinophils is proving to be inadequate for choosing the right drug for the right patient. It is therefore pertinent to understand the underlying immunology, and perhaps, carry out immune endotyping of patients before prescribing appropriate drugs. This review summarizes the immunology of asthma, the cytokines or receptors currently targeted, the possible mechanisms of sub-optimal responses, and the importance of determining the immune make-up of individual patients prior to prescribing mAb therapy, in the age of precision medicine for asthma.

Missing sputum samples are common in asthma intervention studies and successful collection at follow-up is related to improvement in clinical outcomes

With only modest agreement between airway and systemic eosinophilia, biomarkers directly assessing the level and type of airway inflammation are becoming increasingly important, both for targeting treatment to the individual patient and for assessing effect [1].

Several factors significantly impact ability to produce a sputum sample after an anti-inflammatory intervention and these authors argue that the widely used complete-case analysis is inappropriate for paired sputum-based outcome measureshttps://bit.ly/3qN2pk5

Advances and Challenges of Antibody Therapeutics for Severe Bronchial Asthma

Asthma is a disease that consists of three main components: airway inflammation, airway hyperresponsiveness, and airway remodeling. Persistent airway inflammation leads to the destruction and degeneration of normal airway tissues, resulting in thickening of the airway wall, decreased reversibility, and increased airway hyperresponsiveness. The progression of irreversible airway narrowing and the associated increase in airway hyperresponsiveness are major factors in severe asthma. This has led to the identification of effective pharmacological targets and the recognition of several biomarkers that enable a more personalized approach to asthma. However, the efficacies of current antibody therapeutics and biomarkers are still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. The establishment of an ideal phenotype classification that will predict the response of antibody treatment is urgently needed. Here, we review recent advancements in antibody therapeutics and novel findings related to the disease process for severe asthma.

Advances and highlights in asthma in 2021

Last year brought a significant advance in asthma management, unyielding to the pressure of the pandemics. Novel key findings in asthma pathogenesis focus on the resident cell compartment, epigenetics and the innate immune system. The precision immunology unbiased approach was supplemented with novel tools and greatly facilitated by the use of artificial intelligence. Several randomised clinical trials and good quality real-world evidence shed new light on asthma treatment and supported the revision of several asthma guidelines (GINA, Expert Panel Report 3, ERS/ATS guidelines on severe asthma) and the conception of new ones (EAACI Guidelines for the use of biologicals in severe asthma). Integrating asthma management within the broader context of Planetary Health has been put forward. In this review, recently published articles and clinical trials are summarised and discussed with the goal to provide clinicians and researchers with a concise update on asthma research from a translational perspective.

The Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies on Airway Smooth Muscle Contractility in Asthma: A Systematic Review

Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) represents a central pathophysiological hallmark of asthma, with airway smooth muscle (ASM) being the effector tissue implicated in the onset of AHR. ASM also exerts pro-inflammatory and immunomodulatory actions, by secreting a wide range of cytokines and chemokines. In asthma pathogenesis, the overexpression of several type 2 inflammatory mediators including IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP has been associated with ASM hyperreactivity, all of which can be targeted by humanized monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically assess evidence across the literature on mAbs for the treatment of asthma with respect to their impact on the ASM contractile tone. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab were found to be effective in modulating the contractility of the ASM and preventing the AHR, but no available studies concerning the impact of reslizumab on the ASM were identified from the literature search. Omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab can directly modulate the ASM in asthma, by specifically blocking the interaction between IgE, IL-4, and TSLP, and their receptors are located on the surface of ASM cells. Conversely, mepolizumab and benralizumab have prevalently indirect impacts against AHR by targeting eosinophils and other immunomodulatory effector cells promoting inflammatory processes. AHR has been suggested as the main treatable trait towards precision medicine in patients suffering from eosinophilic asthma, therefore, well-designed head-to-head trials are needed to compare the efficacy of those mAbs that directly target ASM contractility specifically against the AHR in severe asthma, namely omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab.

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Patients with Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma and Perennial Allergy

BACKGROUND

Tezepelumab is an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody. In the PATHWAY phase IIb study (NCT02054130), tezepelumab significantly reduced annualized asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) versus placebo in adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy of tezepelumab in PATHWAY participants with perennial allergy.

METHODS

Adults (N=550) with severe, uncontrolled asthma were randomized to receive tezepelumab (70 mg or 210 mg every 4 weeks or 280 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo, for 52 weeks. The AAER over 52 weeks was analyzed in patients grouped by sensitivity to perennial aeroallergens and by eligibility for omalizumab treatment according to the US or EU prescribing information. Change from baseline to week 52 in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and type 2 (T2) biomarkers were assessed in the perennial allergy subgroups.

RESULTS

Across doses, tezepelumab reduced the AAER versus placebo by 66-78% in patients with perennial allergy (n=254) and 67-71% in patients without perennial allergy (n=261). Tezepelumab improved pre-bronchodilator FEV₁ and reduced blood eosinophil counts and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels over 52 weeks, irrespective of perennial allergy status. Tezepelumab reduced the AAER versus placebo by 61-82% in omalizumab-eligible patients (US, n=159; EU, n=101) and 63-70% in omalizumab-ineligible patients (US, n=372; EU, n=440), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with tezepelumab reduced exacerbations, improved lung function and reduced T2 biomarkers versus placebo in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with or without perennial allergy, further supporting its efficacy in a broad population of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.