How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit

Safety of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: An Analysis of Suspected Adverse Reactions Reported in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database

BACKGROUND

The management of uncontrolled severe asthma has greatly improved since the advent of novel biologic therapies. Up to August 2022, five biologics have been approved for the type 2 asthma phenotype: anti-IgE (omalizumab), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), and anti-IL4 (dupilumab) monoclonal antibodies. These drugs are usually well tolerated, although long-term safety information is limited, and some adverse events have not yet been fully characterized. Spontaneous reporting systems represent the cornerstone for the detection of potential signals and evaluation of the real-world safety of all marketed drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of safety data of biologics for severe asthma using VigiBase, the World Health Organization global pharmacovigilance database.

METHODS

We selected all de-duplicated individual case safety reports (ICSRs) attributed to five approved biologics for severe asthma in VigiBase, up to 31st August 2022 (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab). Descriptive frequency analyses of ICSRs were carried out both as a whole class and as individual products. Reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the measure of disproportionality for suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the study drugs compared with either all other suspected drugs (Reference Group 1, RG1) or inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β-agonists (ICSs/LABAs) (Reference Group 2, RG2) or with oral corticosteroids (OCSs) (Reference Group 3, RG3).

RESULTS

Overall, 31,724,381 ICSRs were identified in VigiBase and 167,282 (0.5%) were related to study drugs; the remaining reports were considered as RG1. Stratifying all biologic-related ICSRs by therapeutic indication, around 29.4% (n = 48,440) concerned asthma use; omalizumab was mainly indicated as the suspected drug (n = 20,501), followed by dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab. Most asthma ICSRs concerned adults (57%) and women (64.1%). Asthma biologics showed a higher frequency of serious suspected ADR reporting than RG1 (41.3% vs 32.3%). The most reported suspected ADRs included asthma, dyspnea, product use issue, drug ineffective, cough, headache, fatigue and wheezing. Asthma biologics were disproportionally associated with several unknown or less documented adverse events, such as malignancies, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis with omalizumab; alopecia and lichen planus with dupilumab; alopecia and herpes infections with mepolizumab; alopecia, herpes zoster and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis related to benralizumab; and alopecia with reslizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequently reported suspected ADRs of asthma biologics in VigiBase confirmed the presence of well-known adverse effects such as general disorders, injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, headache and hypersensitivity, while some others (e.g. asthma reactivation or therapeutic failure) could be ascribed to the indication of use. Moreover, the analysis of signals of disproportionate reporting suggests the presence of malignancies, effects on the cardiovascular system, alopecia and autoimmune conditions, requiring further assessment and investigation.

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

Sustained Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Naïve and Biologics-Experienced Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Patients: Results from the ANANKE Study

Purpose

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients often present overlapping inflammatory features rendering them eligible for multiple biologic therapies; switching biologic treatment is a strategy adopted to optimize asthma control when patients show partial or no response to previous biologics.

Patients and Methods

ANANKE is a retrospective, multicenter Italian study (NCT04272463). Here, we outline the characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes in naïve-to-biologics and biologics-experienced patients treated with benralizumab for up to 96 weeks. Bio-experienced patients were split into omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets according to the type of biologic previously used.

Results

A total of 124 (76.5%) naïve and 38 (23.5%) bio-experienced patients were evaluated at index date; 13 patients (34.2%) switched from mepolizumab, 21 patients (55.3%) switched from omalizumab, and four patients (10.5%) received both biologics. The mepolizumab subset was characterized by the longest SEA duration (median of 4.6 years), the highest prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) (76.5%), and the greatest oral corticosteroid (OCS) daily dosage (median of 25 mg prednisone equivalent). The omalizumab group showed the highest severe annual exacerbation rate (AER) (1.70). At 96 weeks, treatment with benralizumab reduced any and severe AER by more than 87% and 94%, respectively, across all groups. Lung function was overall preserved, with major improvements observed in the mepolizumab group, which also revealed a 100% drop of the median OCS dose. Asthma Control Test (ACT) score improved in the naïve group while its increment was more variable in bio-experienced patients; among these, a marked difference was noticed between omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets (median ACT score of 23.5 and 18, respectively).

Conclusion

Benralizumab promotes durable and profound clinical benefits in naïve and bio-experienced groups, indicating that a nearly complete depletion of eosinophils is highly beneficial in the control of SEA, independently of previous biologic use.

Comparison of Long-term Response and Remission to Omalizumab and Anti-IL-5/IL-5R Using Different Criteria in a Real-life Cohort of Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of biologic therapy response is vital to monitor its effectiveness. Authors have proposed various response criteria including good responder, super-responder, non-responder, and clinical remission.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the prevalence of response and clinical remission after long-term treatment (>6 months) of anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics, compare these results with existing criteria, and identify predictors for non-responders and clinical remission.

METHODS

A multicenter, real-life study involving severe asthma patients in Spain. Various outcomes were assessed to gauge response and clinical remission against established criteria.

RESULTS

The study included 429 patients, 209 (48.7%) omalizumab, 112 (26.1%) mepolizumab, 19 (4.4%) reslizumab and 89 (20.7%) benralizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 55.3±38.8 months. In the final year of treatment, 218 (50.8%) were super-responders, 173 (40.3%) responders, 38 (8.9%) non-responders, and clinical remission in 116 (27%), without differences among biologics. The short-term non-responders (<6 months) were 25/545 (4.6%). Substantial variations in response and clinical remission were observed when applying different published criteria. Predictors of non-response included higher BMI (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23; p<0.001), admissions at ICU (2.69; 1.30-5.56; p=0.01), high count of SAE (1.21; 1.03-1.42; p=0.02) before biologic treatment. High FEV1% (0.96; 0.95-0.98; p<0.001), a high ACT score (0.93; 0.88-0.99; p=0.01) before biologic treatment or NSAID-ERD (0.52; 0.29-0.91; p=0.02) showed strong associations with achieving clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of severe asthma patients treated long-term with omalizumab or anti-IL5/IL-5Rα achieved a good response. Differences in response criteria highlight the need for harmonization in defining response and clinical remission in biologic therapy to enable meaningful cross-study comparisons.

A comparison of healthcare utilization and outcomes following skin vs. serum-specific IgE allergy testing

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost, healthcare utilization, and outcomes between skin and serum-specific IgE (sIgE) allergy testing.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used IBM® MarketScan claims data, from which commercially insured individuals who initiated allergy testing between January 1 and December 31, 2018 with at least 12 months of enrollment data before and after index testing date were included. Cost of allergy testing per patient was estimated by testing pattern: skin only, sIgE only, or both. Multivariable linear regression was used to compare healthcare utilization and outcomes, including office visits, allergy and asthma-related prescriptions, and emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) visits between skin and sIgE testing at 1-year post testing (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The cohort included 168,862 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 30.8 (19.5) years; 100,666 (59.7%) were female. Over half of patients (56.4%, n = 95,179) had skin only testing, followed by 57,291 patients with sIgE only testing and 16,212 patients with both testing. The average cost of allergy testing per person in the first year was $430 (95% CI $426-433) in patients with skin only testing, $187 (95% CI $183-190) in patients with sIgE only testing, and $532 (95% CI $522-542) in patients with both testing. At 1-year follow-up post testing, there were slight increases in allergy and asthma-related prescriptions, and notable decreases in ED visits by 17.0-17.4% and in UC visits by 10.9-12.6% for all groups (all p < 0.01). Patients with sIgE-only testing had 3.2 fewer allergist/immunologist visits than patients with skin-only testing at 1-year follow-up (p < 0.001). Their healthcare utilization and outcomes were otherwise comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergy testing, regardless of the testing method used, is associated with decreases in ED and UC visits at 1-year follow-up. sIgE allergy testing is associated with lower testing cost and fewer allergist/immunologist visits, compared to skin testing.

Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in a Case of Chronic Urticaria following Omalizumab Therapy

In Italy, tuberculosis (TB) incidence in the last decade has remained constant at under 10 cases/100,000 inhabitants. In the Philippines, TB annual incidence is greater than 500 cases/100,000 inhabitants. Omalizumab is a humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria. We report the case of a 32-year-old Filipino woman who suffered from chronic urticaria, treated with topic steroids since June 2022 and systemic steroids for 2 weeks. In November 2022, she started omalizumab therapy at a monthly dose of 300 mg; she was not screened for TB infection. In the same month, a left laterocervical lymphadenopathy arose, which worsened in February 2023 (diameter: 3 cm). The patient recovered in April 2023 in INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" in Rome for suspected TB. Chest CT showed a "tree in bud" pattern at the upper-right pulmonary lobe. The patient tested positive for lymph node biopsy molecular tuberculosis. The patient started standard antituberculosis therapy. She discontinued omalizumab. To our knowledge, this is the second diagnosed TB case during omalizumab treatment, which suggests that attention should be paid to the known risk of TB during biotechnological treatments. Even if current guidelines do not recommend screening for TB before starting anti-IgE therapy, further data should be sought to assess the relationship between omalizumab treatment and active TB. Our experience suggests that screening for TB should be carried out in patients from highly tuberculosis-endemic countries before starting omalizumab therapy.

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

The emergence of biologic therapies for the management of asthma has been a revolutionary change in our capacity to manage this disease. Since the launch of omalizumab, several other biologics have been marketed or are close to being marketed, suggesting that a plethora of monoclonal antibodies can be expected in the coming years. This will facilitate the transition to the paradigm of personalized medicine, but on the other hand will decisively further complicate the choice of the most appropriate treatment, in the absence of reliable enough biological markers. For these reasons, along with the relatively short time of use with these treatments, there are recurrently arising questions for which there are not even moderately documented answers, and for which the only solution must be based, with all reservations, on the combination of indirect evidence and expertise. In this paper, we attempt to address such questions, providing relevant commentaries and considering the whole width of the evidence base.

Factors to Consider in Prescribing Asthma Biologic Therapies to Children

The increasing availability of biologics, both by expanding age indications and by development of new therapies, provides additional options to treat children and adolescents with severe asthma. However, the evidence for these biologics in these populations is limited compared with that for adult studies. As such, before initiation of therapy, possible alternative therapies that can also provide asthma control, confirmation of the diagnosis of asthma, management of comorbidities, and assessment of adherence should be explored. The choice of a biologic should be a shared decision-making process between providers and families, balancing biologic efficacy, goals of care, administration, and ability to treat multiple conditions. Response to treatment should be periodically evaluated not only to ensure an ineffective treatment is not continued but also to consider when to potentially discontinue therapy should it be beneficial. The utilization of biologics in children and adolescents with severe asthma also leads to unanswered questions on their role in disease remission and long-term outcomes.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Reactions to Mrgprx2-Activating Drugs in an Electronic Health Record-Linked Biobank

BACKGROUND

Mas-related G protein-couple receptor x2 (Mrgprx2) activation underlies many common non-IgE-mediated adverse drug reactions (ADRs), yet the features of patients with reactions to Mrgprx2-activating drugs are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the patient-specific comorbidities and laboratory characteristics associated with listed reactions to Mrgprx2-activating drugs, including fluoroquinolones, morphine, neuromuscular blockade agents, vancomycin, and leuprolide.

METHODS

We used a retrospective, observational cohort study design using electronic health record data from adults with an Mrgprx2-activating drug exposure recorded within a hospital system clinical Biobank. Odds ratios (ORs) and incidence rate ratios for clinical characteristics associated with ADRs, including immediate hypersensitivity reactions, were calculated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 59,763 patients exposed to Mrgprx2-activating drugs, 4846 had a listed ADR. Female sex, White race, asthma (OR: 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-1.94), chronic urticaria (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.46-2.05), and mastocytosis (OR: 12.79, 95% CI: 5.98-27.02) were associated with increased odds of a reaction. Overall, patients with allergic disease had 1.21 times the rate of an ADR compared with patients without allergic disease. Elevated absolute eosinophil count was inversely associated with reactions, and there was no association with elevated total IgE. Observed associations were similar in a patient subgroup with immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions.

CONCLUSION

Specific allergic diseases and common allergic biomarkers are differentially associated with ADRs to Mrgprx2-activating drugs. These findings from a large, "real world" drug-exposed population highlight clinical factors that may contribute to non-IgE-mediated drug allergy.

Risks and safety of biologics: A practical guide for allergists

Biologic agents are a rapidly expanding class of medications, and several options are now available for the management of allergic and immunologic disorders. The risks of biologic therapy need to be understood in order to adequately counsel patients and appropriately monitor for potential adverse events. We sought to provide a comprehensive review of the risks and adverse effects reported for the current FDA-approved biologics used in management of allergic and immunologic disorders, including omalizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, tezepelumab and tralokinumab. Our review focuses on the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, pregnancy-specific considerations, risk of infection and risk of malignancy. We also highlight drug-specific adverse events and unique safety issues identified in case reports.

Asthma Management in Adults

Management of asthma in adults has advanced in the past 10 years. Central to these advances has been further clarification of type (T) 2 mechanisms of airway inflammation and utilization of T2 biomarkers, that is, eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. In addition, epithelial cells are emerging as significant contributors to inflammation through generation of alarmins to initiate local injury as well as downstream pathways. Five new biologics, mepolizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, were approved to join omalizumab and revolutionize severe asthma treatment. These biologics significantly prevent exacerbations to spare systemic corticosteroids use and their side effects. Guidelines attest to the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β-agonists (formoterol) for both maintenance and rescue therapy. Focused updates to the Expert Panel Report addressed limited but specific questions relevant to asthma control. Future guidelines should include phenotype/endotype-directed therapeutics to gain more precision-directed treatment.

[Eosinophilic dermatoses]

Eosinophilic dermatoses are a heterogeneous group of rare diseases that histopathologically display the defining pattern of an eosinophil-rich dermal infiltrate. In these eosinophilic dermatoses, a histopathologic pattern called flame figures, which result from degranulation of eosinophils in the tissue, can be observed. Although eosinophil granulocytes can also be detected in other dermatoses such as atopic dermatitis, urticaria, prurigo and bullous pemphigoid, the eosinophil-rich infiltrate is decisive for classic eosinophilic dermatoses. Accordingly, eosinophilic dermatoses include hypereosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic fasciitis, granuloma faciale, pustular sterile eosinophilia, and angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia. These eosinophilic dermatoses display clinical different patterns and are discussed in this article, as well as the interesting eosinophils and novel therapeutic options.

Current Biologics in Asthma Treatment

Uncontrolled asthma and/or severe asthma causes significant impairments in quality of life and is often a huge health care burden. Monoclonal antibodies have been an important addition to the therapeutic management of patients with moderate to severe asthma who do not respond to conventional asthma management. Currently the majority of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved biologics target T2 high inflammation. However, with the expanding knowledge of asthma pathogenesis, novel therapeutics targeting T2 low inflammation are in development. In this article we will focus on the current understanding of T2 inflammation and approved biologics for moderate to severe asthma.

Switching from one biologic to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: An ANANKE study post hoc analysis

Background

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease driven by eosinophilic inflammation in the majority of cases. Despite biologic therapy patients may still be sub-optimally controlled, and the choice of the best biologic is a matter of debate. Indeed, switching between biologics is common, but no official guidelines are available and real-world data are limited.

Materials and methods

In this post hoc analysis of the Italian, multi-center, observational, retrospective study, ANANKE. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab were divided in two groups based on history of previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced [suboptimal response] vs naïve). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment. Change over time in blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use following benralizumab initiation were collected in the two groups.

Results

A total of 147 biologic-naïve and 58 biologic-experienced (34 omalizumab, 19 mepolizumab, and 5 omalizumab-mepolizumab) patients were enrolled. Biologic-experienced patients were more likely to be atopic and have a higher AER despite more frequent OCS use. Similar reductions in AER (&gt;90% in both groups), OCS use (≥49% reduction in dosage and ≥41% able to eliminate OCS), ACT improvement (≥7 points gained in 48 weeks) and lung function (≥300 mL of FEV1 improvement in 48 weeks) were observed after benralizumab introduction within the two groups. There were no registered discontinuations of benralizumab for safety reasons.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, patients who were switched to benralizumab because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to be atopic and more often treated with omalizumab. Benralizumab is effective in both naïve patients and those previously treated with a biologic.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tezepelumab and Other Biologics in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma According to Thresholds of Type 2 Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin antibody (tezepelumab) has therapeutical potential for inadequately controlled asthma. However, evidence comparing tezepelumab with other biologics is scarce. To address this issue, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy of five treatments (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, and placebo) in overall participants and in subgroups stratified by the thresholds of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, including peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). The primary endpoints were annualized exacerbation rate (AER) and any adverse events (AAEs). In the ranking assessment using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of AER, tezepelumab ranked the highest overall and across subgroups (based on PBEC and FeNO level thresholds). A significant difference was observed between tezepelumab and dupilumab in the patient subgroup with PBEC < 150, and between tezepelumab and benralizumab in overall participants and the patient subgroup with PBEC ≥ 300 and ≥150, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of AAEs in the overall participants between each pair of five treatment arms. These results provide a basis for the development of treatment strategies for asthma and may guide basic, clinical, or translational research.

Strategies for choosing a biologic for your patient with allergy or asthma

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the therapeutic effects and safety of biologics either approved or in clinical development for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urticaria, nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. This review attempts to provide some guidance when choosing among agents.

DATA SOURCES

Recently published articles obtained through PubMed database searches including research articles, review articles, and case reports.

STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed database searches were conducted using the following keywords: biologics, asthma, COPD, urticaria, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

RESULTS

The approval of omalizumab by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 for patients with asthma paved the way for the development of multiple biologics for a variety of respiratory and allergic diseases. Agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration include mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, and several more are in the late stages of clinical development. Owing to the overlap in the pathogenesis of respiratory and allergic diseases, many of these biologics target multiple respiratory and allergic diseases simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

The numerous biologic options have made the selection of the best biologic for each patient a potential conundrum for clinicians. Adequate point of care biomarkers to facilitate personalized medical therapy are generally lacking. Furthermore, although clinically effective and generally safe, none of the biologics discussed in this review have induced long-standing disease remission. Nevertheless, these agents have given us the opportunity to treat the most severe patients and to better understand the biology of respiratory and allergic diseases. As knowledgeable physicians, we should embrace and be educated on these novel therapies and the pathways they target.

Real-life Cretan asthma registry focused on severe asthma: On behalf of 'The Cretan registry of the use of Biologics in Severe Asthma'

Asthma diagnosis and management remains a challenging task for the medical community. The aim of the present study was to present the functional and inflammatory profiles of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma in a real-life clinical setting referred to the specialized asthma clinic at the University Hospital of Heraklion. The registry included a cohort of 267 patients who were referred to the severe asthma clinic. Patients were assessed with emphasis on the history of allergies, nasal polyposis or other comorbidities. Blood testing for eosinophils counts and total and specific IgE, and pulmonary function tests were performed at baseline. The median age of patients with asthma was 55 years old, 68.5% were women and 58.3% were never smokers. The vast majority presented with late onset asthma (75.7%), whereas eight (3%) patients were on oral corticosteroids. The median number of exacerbations during the last 12 months was 1 (0-3). Furthermore, 50.7% of patients had a positive serum allergy test, the median eosinophil count was 300 (188-508.5) cells/µl of blood and median total IgE level was 117.5 (29.4-360.5) IU/ml. Patients were retrospectively grouped in the following categories: Group 1, mild-moderate asthma; group 2, patients prescribed a step 4 or 5 asthma therapy according to Global Initiative for Asthma; and group 3, patients on biologic agents. Group 1 had significantly higher FEV1% than groups 2 and 3 (93.4 vs. 79.9 and 79.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Finally, the median Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 (ACQ7) score was 1.14, with patients from groups 2 and 3 presenting higher ACQ7 scores compared with group 1 patients as expected (1.1 and 2.1 vs. 0.7, respectively; P<0.001). To the best of our knowledge, this was the first real-life asthma study in Crete that demonstrated that severe asthmatics predominantly have late-onset asthma with airflow obstruction and uncontrolled symptoms.

Factors leading to discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient- and physician-reported reasons for discontinuing biologic therapy among patients with severe asthma from a real-world US cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis surveyed US physicians and their patients with severe asthma who were receiving/had previously received biologic therapy between August and December 2019. Physicians managing ≥3 patients with asthma per month completed surveys on disease management, demographics, exacerbation history, and biologic adherence for eligible patients. Patients could voluntarily complete a questionnaire, providing perceptions of their disease and treatment.

RESULTS

117 physicians completed case reports for 285 patients; 85 patients had discontinued biologic therapy. Physicians (n = 85) and patients (n = 64) reported patient request (28.2% and 46.9%), shortness of breath (45.9% and 23.4%), other chronic respiratory symptoms (29.4% and 10.9%), cost/reimbursement (17.7%/9.4% and 20.3%/7.8%), and exacerbations (25.9% and 10.9%) among the main reasons for biologic discontinuation. Patients who continued biologic therapy were older (mean age 47.6 years) than those who discontinued (43.8 years), and were more likely to have ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year (52.5% vs 35.3%), allergic rhinitis (70.0% vs 62.4%), or chronic rhinosinusitis (30.0% vs 12.9%). Side effects were cited as reasons by only 15.3% and 7.8% of physicians and patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common reasons given for discontinuation of biologic therapy were lack of symptom control, exacerbations, cost, and patient request. These data highlight the complexity of care for this patient group and the need for ongoing, regular assessment of common challenges to biologic continuation and reasons for discontinuation, including both clinical and non-clinical factors.

Uncontrolled Asthma: Unmet Needs in the Management of Patients

The recent scientific research has provided clinicians with the tools for substantially upgrading the standard of care in the field of bronchial asthma. Nevertheless, satisfactory asthma control still remains an unmet need worldwide. Identifying the major determinants of poor control in different asthma severity levels represents the first step towards the improvement of the overall patients' management. The present review aims to provide an overview of the main unmet needs in asthma control and of the potential tools for overcoming the issue. Implementing a personalized medicine approach is essential, not only in terms of pharmacological treatments, biologic drugs or sophisticated biomarkers. In fact, exploring the complex profile of each patient, from his inflammation phenotype to his preferences and expectations, may help in filling the gap between the big potential of currently available treatments and the overall unsatisfactory asthma control. Telemedicine and e-health technologies may provide a strategy to both optimize disease assessment on a regular basis and enhance patients' empowerment in managing their asthma. Increasing patients' awareness as well as the physicians' knowledge about asthma phenotypes and treatment options besides corticosteroid probably represent the key and more difficult goals of all the players involved in asthma management at every level.