Variability in Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients with Eosinophilic Asthma

Eosinophilic Asthma: Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Horizons

Asthma is a prevalent chronic non-communicable disease, affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. It is characterized by significant airway inflammation, hyperresponsiveness, obstruction, and remodeling. Eosinophilic asthma, a subtype of asthma, involves the accumulation of eosinophils in the airways. These eosinophils release mediators and cytokines, contributing to severe airway inflammation and tissue damage. Emerging evidence suggests that targeting eosinophils could reduce airway remodeling and slow the progression of asthma. To achieve this, it is essential to understand the immunopathology of asthma, identify specific eosinophil-associated biomarkers, and categorize patients more accurately based on the clinical characteristics (phenotypes) and underlying pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). This review delves into the role of eosinophils in exacerbating severe asthma, exploring various phenotypes and endotypes, as well as biomarkers. It also examines the current and emerging biological agents that target eosinophils in eosinophilic asthma. By focusing on these aspects, both researchers and clinicians can advance the development of targeted therapies to combat eosinophilic pathology in severe asthma.

Clinical Implications of Longitudinal Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

The stability and variability of blood eosinophil counts (BECs) to phenotype patients with severe asthma is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc, longitudinal, pooled analysis of placebo-arm patients from 2 phase 3 studies evaluated the clinical implications of BEC stability and variability in moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

This analysis included patients from SIROCCO and CALIMA who received maintenance medium- to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists; 2:1 patients with BECs of 300 cells/μL or higher and less than 300 cells/μL were enrolled. The BECs were measured 6 times over 1 year in a centralized laboratory. Exacerbations, lung function, and Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 scores were documented across patients grouped by BEC (<300 cells/μL or ≥300 cells/μL) and variability (<80% or ≥80% BECs less than or greater than 300 cells/μL).

RESULTS

Among 718 patients, 42.2% (n = 303) had predominantly high, 30.9% (n = 222) had predominantly low, and 26.9% (n = 193) had variable BECs. Prospective exacerbation rates (mean ± SD) were significantly greater in patients with predominantly high (1.39 ± 2.20) and variable (1.41 ± 2.09) BECs versus predominantly low (1.05 ± 1.66) BECs. Similar results were observed for the number of exacerbations while on placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with variable BECs had intermittently high and low BECs, they experienced similar exacerbation rates to the predominantly high group, which were greater than those in the predominantly low group. A high BEC supports an eosinophilic phenotype in clinical settings without additional measurements, whereas a low BEC requires repeated measurements because it could reflect intermittently high or predominantly low BECs.

Subsets of Eosinophils in Asthma, a Challenge for Precise Treatment

The existence of eosinophils was documented histopathologically in the first half of the 19th century. However, the term “eosinophils” was first used by Paul Ehrlich in 1878. Since their discovery and description, their existence has been associated with asthma, allergies, and antihelminthic immunity. Eosinophils may also be responsible for various possible tissue pathologies in many eosinophil-associated diseases. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the understanding of the nature of this cell population has undergone a fundamental reassessment, and in 2010, J. J. Lee proposed the concept of “LIAR” (Local Immunity And/or Remodeling/Repair), underlining the extensive immunoregulatory functions of eosinophils in the context of health and disease. It soon became apparent that mature eosinophils (in line with previous morphological studies) are not structurally, functionally, or immunologically homogeneous cell populations. On the contrary, these cells form subtypes characterized by their further development, immunophenotype, sensitivity to growth factors, localization, role and fate in tissues, and contribution to the pathogenesis of various diseases, including asthma. The eosinophil subsets were recently characterized as resident (rEos) and inflammatory (iEos) eosinophils. During the last 20 years, the biological therapy of eosinophil diseases, including asthma, has been significantly revolutionized. Treatment management has been improved through the enhancement of treatment effectiveness and a decrease in the adverse events associated with the formerly ultimately used systemic corticosteroids. However, as we observed from real-life data, the global treatment efficacy is still far from optimal. A fundamental condition, “sine qua non”, for correct treatment management is a thorough evaluation of the inflammatory phenotype of the disease. We believe that a better understanding of eosinophils would lead to more precise diagnostics and classification of asthma subtypes, which could further improve treatment outcomes. The currently validated asthma biomarkers (eosinophil count, production of NO in exhaled breath, and IgE synthesis) are insufficient to unveil super-responders among all severe asthma patients and thus give only a blurred picture of the adepts for treatment. We propose an emerging approach consisting of a more precise characterization of pathogenic eosinophils in terms of the definition of their functional status or subset affiliation by flow cytometry. We believe that the effort to find new eosinophil-associated biomarkers and their rational use in treatment algorithms may ameliorate the response rate to biological therapy in patients with severe asthma.

Distribution of type 2 biomarkers and association with severity, clinical characteristics and comorbidities in the BREATHE real-life asthma population

Background

Type 2 (T2) high asthma is recognised as a heterogenous entity consisting of several endotypes; however, the prevalence and distribution of the T2 biomarkers in the general asthma population, across asthma severity, and across compartments is largely unknown. The objective of the present study was to describe expression and overlaps of airway and systemic T2 biomarkers in a clinically representative asthma population.

Methods

Patients with asthma from the real-life BREATHE cohort referred to a specialist centre were included and grouped according to T2 biomarkers: blood and sputum eosinophilia (≥0.3×10⁹ cells·L^-1 and 3% respectively), total IgE (≥150 U·mL^-1), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (≥25 ppb).

Results

Patients with mild-to-moderate asthma were younger (41 versus 49 years, p<0.001), had lower body mass index (25.9 versus 28.0 kg·m^-2, p=0.002) and less atopy (47% versus 58%, p=0.05), higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s (3.2 versus 2.8 L, p<0.001) and forced vital capacity (4.3 versus 3.9 L, p<0.001) compared with patients with severe asthma, who had higher blood (0.22×10⁹ versus 0.17×10⁹ cells·L^-1, p=0.01) and sputum (3.0% versus 1.5%, p=0.01) eosinophils. Co-expression of all T2 biomarkers was a particular characteristic of severe asthma (p<0.001). In patients with eosinophilia, sputum eosinophilia without blood eosinophilia was present in 45% of patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and 35% with severe asthma.

Conclusion

Severe asthma is more commonly associated with activation of several T2 pathways, indicating that treatments targeting severe asthma may need to act more broadly on T2 inflammatory pathways. Implementation of airway inflammometry in clinical care is of paramount importance, as the best treatable trait is otherwise is overlooked in a large proportion of patients irrespective of disease severity.

Clinical Associations of Mucus Plugging in Moderate to Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Mucus plugging is recognized as a contributory factor to airway obstruction and symptoms in persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine phenotypic associations of mucus plugging in patients with moderate to severe asthma in a real-life clinic setting.

METHODS

Mucus plugs (MPs) were identified by a thoracic radiologist upon high-resolution computed tomography imaging. A MP score was subsequently calculated and analyzed along with type 2 biomarkers, spirometry, severe exacerbations, and asthma control for 126 patients with moderate to severe asthma before biologic therapy.

RESULTS

Asthma patients with MP had significantly worse FEV₁%, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of FVC percent, and FEV₁/FVC as well as higher levels of peripheral blood eosinophils, FeNO, total IgE, and Aspergillus fumigatus IgE titers, and had previously experienced more frequent severe exacerbations. FEV₁/FVC, more than two exacerbations per year, blood eosinophils, total IgE, and A fumigatus IgE titers were associated with MPs after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Poorly controlled asthma patients with MPs exhibited significantly worse airflow obstruction and greater type 2 inflammation associated with more frequent severe exacerbations. Impaired spirometry, more frequent exacerbations, raised blood eosinophils, total IgE, and A fumigatus IgE increased the likelihood of MPs.

Uncontrolled severe T2 asthma: Which biological to choose? A biomarker-based approach

In recent years, advances in knowledge of molecular mechanisms involved in asthma have changed uncontrolled severe asthma (USA) treatment, with the appearance of biological treatment. USA is a heterogeneous entity with different endotypes and phenotypes. Nowadays, the biological drugs approved with asthma indication are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. Tezepelumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and, recently, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All these biological drugs have shown their efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing exacerbations, improving asthma control, quality of life, pulmonary function, and withdrawing systemic corticosteroids or at least reducing their daily dose, with some differences between them. Except for mepolizumab and reslizumab, biological drugs have different targets and thus different therapeutic indications should be expected; however, in some patients, more than one drug could be indicated, making the election more difficult. Because there are no direct comparisons between biological drugs, some biomarkers are used to choose between them, but they are not unbeatable. In this article, an algorithm to choose the first biological drug in a specific patient is proposed based on different study results and patient' characteristics.

Phenotyping, Precision Medicine, and Asthma

The traditional one-size-fits all approach based on asthma severity is archaic. Asthma is a heterogenous syndrome rather than a single disease entity. Studies evaluating observable characteristics called phenotypes have elucidated this heterogeneity. Asthma clusters demonstrate overlapping features, are generally stable over time and are reproducible. What the identification of clusters may have failed to do, is move the needle of precision medicine meaningfully in asthma. This may be related to the lack of a straightforward and clinically meaningful way to apply what we have learned about asthma clusters. Clusters are based on both clinical factors and biomarkers. The use of biomarkers is slowly gaining popularity, but phenotyping based on biomarkers is generally greatly underutilized even in subspecialty care. Biomarkers are more often used to evaluate type 2 (T2) inflammatory signatures and eosinophils (sputum and blood), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and serum total and specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E reliably characterize the underlying inflammatory pathways. Biomarkers perform variably and clinicians must be familiar with their advantages and disadvantages to accurately apply them in clinical care. In addition, it is increasingly clear that clinical features are critical in understanding not only phenotypic characterization but in predicting response to therapy and future risk of poor outcomes. Strategies for asthma management will need to leverage our knowledge of biomarkers and clinical features to create composite scores and risk prediction tools that are clinically applicable. Despite significant progress, many questions remain, and more work is required to accurately identify non-T2 biomarkers. Adoption of phenotyping and more consistent use of biomarkers is needed, and we should continue to encourage this incorporation into practice.

Characterization of disease flares and impact of mepolizumab in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome

In patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), mepolizumab reduces the incidence of HES-related clinical signs and symptoms (flares). However, reports characterizing flare manifestations are limited. The double-blind, parallel-group 200622 trial (NCT02836496) enrolled patients ≥12 years old with HES for ≥6 months, ≥2 flares in the previous year, and screening blood eosinophil count ≥1000 cells/μL. Patients maintained ≥4 weeks stable HES therapy, before randomization (1:1) to 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab (300 mg) or placebo, plus baseline HES therapy, for 32 weeks. This post hoc analysis investigated flare manifestations and duration by re-examining the Core Assessments form and narrative recorded for each flare during the study. Flare symptoms were retrospectively categorized into constitutional, dermatological, respiratory, nasal, gastrointestinal, neurologic and other. The most frequently reported flare symptoms were constitutional (94% of flares), dermatological (82% of flares) and respiratory (72% of flares); flares reported in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with placebo were generally similar in terms of the frequency of symptoms reported. Mepolizumab was associated with a shorter median (range) duration of flares (10.0 [4, 126] days) versus placebo (26.0 [1, 154] days). In patients with HES, flares were associated with symptoms linked to multiple organ systems highlighting the challenges faced for treating flares.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02836496, identifier NCT02836496.

Eosinophilic Asthma, Phenotypes-Endotypes and Current Biomarkers of Choice

Asthma phenotyping and endotyping are constantly evolving. Currently, several biologic agents have been developed towards a personalized approach to asthma management. This review will focus on different eosinophilic phenotypes and Th2-associated endotypes with eosinophilic inflammation. Additionally, airway remodeling is analyzed as a key feature of asthmatic eosinophilic endotypes. In addition, evidence of biomarkers is examined with a predictive value to identify patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma who may benefit from new treatment options. Finally, there will be a discussion on the results from clinical trials regarding severe eosinophilic asthma and how the inhibition of the eosinophilic pathway by targeted treatments has led to the reduction of recurrent exacerbations.

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.

Allergic and eosinophilic asthma in the era of biomarkers and biologics: similarities, differences and misconceptions

OBJECTIVE

Severe asthma is associated with substantial personal and economic burden; maintaining disease control is the key management goal. Increased understanding of asthma heterogeneity and development of type 2 (T2)-targeting biologics has substantially advanced disease management and outcomes; however, despite both being driven by T2 inflammation, allergic and eosinophilic asthma have different treatment recommendations. We sought to better understand the similarities and differences between allergic and eosinophilic asthma and highlight where misconceptions may arise.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles, pivotal trials, post hoc analyses, and asthma clinical guidelines sourced from PubMed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Sources reporting allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications, disease mechanisms, and biomarkers associated with treatment response.

RESULTS

This review highlights that severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma are both driven by T2 inflammation with eosinophils playing a cardinal role. Despite this overlap, treatment recommendations differ based on asthma classification. T2 cytokine gene expression is a reasonably well-established research tool, but not a well-established biomarker in clinical practice, unlike blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and immunoglobulin E; the clinical relevance of immunoglobulin E as a predictive biomarker remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

Asthma classifications that can be easily characterized at patient level to ensure accurate diagnosis, predict disease trajectory, and treatment response are required. The current dichotomy of allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications is likely too simplistic, given the similar eosinophil-mediated disease pathophysiology in both classifications. Our results provide future directions to guide clinically meaningful interpretation of asthma endophenotypes, which may improve understanding of severe asthma characterization and aid future advances in defining responders more precisely with personalized medicine approaches.

Utilizing Predictive Inflammatory Markers for Guiding the Use of Biologicals in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction. Up to ten percent of asthmatics have severe asthma, and many remain uncontrolled despite optimal medical management. With our increased understanding of the heterogeneity of asthma and its complex pathophysiology, several biomarkers have been developed and in the recent past, several biologic therapies for severe asthma have been developed and are now in widespread use. Although these biological agents have shown great benefit in treating severe asthma, not all patients respond equally well, and some do not derive any benefit. As much of the current literature of these medications have not assessed biomarkers or have used different cutoffs, it is often challenging to decide the best medication for an individual patient. Here, we review common asthma subtypes, current available biologic therapies for asthma, the clinical application of currently available type 2 biomarkers, as well as summarizing the evidence on how patient characteristics and biomarkers can help with choosing the optimal biologic for a patient that has the highest likelihood of success.

Obese, non-eosinophilic asthma: frequent exacerbators in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVE

In the UK, asthma deaths are at their highest level this century. Increased recognition of at-risk patients is needed. This study phenotyped frequent asthma exacerbators and used machine learning to predict frequent exacerbators.

METHODS

Patients admitted to a district general hospital with an asthma exacerbation between 1st March 2018 and 1st March 2020 were included. Patients were organized into two groups: "Infrequent Exacerbators" (1 admission in the previous 12 months) and "Frequent Exacerbators" (≥2 admissions in the previous 12 months). Patient data were retrospectively collected from hospital and primary care records. Machine learning models were used to predict frequent exacerbators.

RESULTS

200 patients admitted for asthma exacerbations were randomly selected (73% female; mean age 47.8 years). Peripheral eosinophilia was uncommon in either group (21% vs 19%). More frequent exacerbators were being treated with high-dose ICS than infrequent exacerbators (46.5% vs 23.2%; P < 0.001), and frequent exacerbators used more SABA inhalers (10.9 vs 7.40; P = 0.01) in the year preceding the current admission. BMI was raised in both groups (34.2 vs 30.9). Logistic regression was the most accurate machine learning model for predicting frequent exacerbators (AUC = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients admitted for asthma are predominately female, obese and non-eosinophilic. Patients who require multiple admissions per year have poorer asthma control at baseline. Machine learning algorithms can predict frequent exacerbators using clinical data available in primary care. Instead of simply increasing the dose of corticosteroids, multidisciplinary management targeting Th2-low inflammation should be considered for these patients.

Impact of Blood Eosinophil Variability in Asthma: A Real-Life Population Study

RATIONALE

Blood eosinophil count predicts response to inhaled corticosteroids and specific biologic therapies in selected asthma patients. Despite this important role, fundamental aspects of eosinophil behavior in asthma have not been studied. Objectives To investigate the behavior of blood eosinophils in a population comparing their distribution with the general population and studying their intra-individual variability over time in relation to hospital episodes (emergency department visits and hospitalizations) in clinical practice.

METHODS

The distribution and variability of 35,703 eosinophil determinations in 10,059 stable asthma patients were investigated in the Majorca Real-Life Investigation in COPD and Asthma cohort (MAJORICA). Eosinophil distribution in the asthma population was compared with a control sample from the general population of 8,557 individuals. Eosinophil variability and hospital episodes were analyzed using correlations, ROC curves and multiple regression analysis. We defined the Eosinophil Variability Index (EVI) as (Eosmax-Eosmin/Eosmax) x 100%. The findings of the asthma population were re-tested in an external well-characterized asthma cohort.

RESULTS

The eosinophil count values and variability were higher in the asthma population than in the general population (p-value<0.001). Variability data showed a better association with hospital episodes than the counting values. An EVI≥50% was more strongly associated with hospital episodes than any of the absolute counting values. These results were validated in the external cohort.

CONCLUSION

The eosinophil variability in asthma patients better identifies the risk of any hospital episode than the absolute counting values currently used to target specific treatments.