Evolving phenotypes to endotypes: is precision medicine achievable in asthma?

Experts' Opinion on diagnosis and management of Severe Asthma, an Indian/Low and middle-income countries (LMIC) Perspective

Objective In this document, 9 Indian experts have evaluated the factors specific to LMICs when it came to Severe Asthma (SA) diagnosis, evaluation, biologic selection, non-biologic treatment options and follow-up.Data Sources A search was performed using 50 keywords., focusing on the Indian/LMICs perspective, in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The key areas of the search were focused on diagnosis, phenoendotyping, non-biological therapies, selecting a biologic, assessment of treatment response and management of exacerbation.Study Selections The initial search revealed 1826 articles, from these case reports, observational studies, cohort studies, non-English language papers etc were excluded and we short-listed 20 articles for each area. 5 relevant papers were selected by the experts for review.Results In LMICs SA patients may be referred to the specialist for evaluation a little late for Phenoendotyping of SA. While biologic therapy is now a standard of care, pulmonologists in LMICs may not have access to all the investigations to phenoendotype SA patients like Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), Skin prick test (SPT) etc., but phenotyping of SA patients can also be done with simple blood investigations, eosinophil count and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). Choosing a biologic in the overlapping phenotype of SA and ACO patients is also a challenge in the LMICs.Conclusion Given the limitations of LMIC, it is important to select the right patient and explain the potential benefits of biological therapy. Non-biologic add-on therapies can be attempted in a resource-limited setting where biological therapy is not available/feasible for patients.

Personalized and Precision Medicine in Asthma and Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Role of T2 Target Therapy

The role of type 2 inflammation has been progressively associated with many diseases, including severe asthma, atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and, recently, eosinophilic esophagitis. Despite this, the association between asthma and esophagitis is still poorly known, and this is probably because of the low prevalence of each disease and the even lower association between them. Nonetheless, observations in clinical trials and, subsequently, in real life, have allowed researchers to observe how drugs acting on type 2 inflammation, initially developed and marketed for severe asthma, could be effective also in treating eosinophilic esophagitis. For this reason, clinical trials specifically designed for the use of drugs targeted to type 2 inflammation were also developed for eosinophilic esophagitis. The results of clinical trials are presently promising and envisage the use of biologicals that are also likely to be employed in the field of gastroenterology in the near future. This review focuses on the use of biologicals for type 2 inflammation in cases of combined severe asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis.

[Translated article] Advances in the work of multidisciplinary teams for the care of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. A post-COVID vision (TEAM 2.0 project)

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease with a high health, social and economic impact, particularly in the case of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA). For this reason, new strategies are especially necessary to improve its approach, with a personalized approach to each patient and from a multidisciplinary perspective, in addition to integrating the new telemedicine and telepharmacy practices promoted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, the TEAM 2.0 project ("Work in Multidisciplinary Asthma Teams") has been developed, following the TEAM project carried out in 2019, with the aim of updating and prioritizing good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA in a post pandemic context and analyze the progress made. A coordinating group, made up of eight multidisciplinary teams of hospital pharmacists, pulmonologists, and allergists, carried out an updated bibliographic review, sharing of good multidisciplinary practices, and analysis of advances. Through five regional meetings with other experts with experience in SUA, the good practices identified were shared and subjected to debate, evaluation and prioritization. In total, 23 good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA, grouped into five work areas: 1) Organization of work in multidisciplinary teams, 2) Patient education, self-management and adherence, 3) Health results, data monitoring and persistence, 4) Telepharmacy and experiences implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and 5) Training and research, were evaluated and prioritized by 57 professionals from the field of Hospital Pharmacy, Pulmonology, Allergology and Nursing. This work has made it possible to update the roadmap of priority actions to continue advancing in optimal models of care for patients with AGNC in a post-COVID-19 context.

Asthma and Allergy: Unravelling a Tangled Relationship with a Focus on New Biomarkers and Treatment

Asthma is a major driver of health care costs across ages. Despite widely disseminated asthma-treatment guidelines and a growing variety of effective therapeutic options, most patients still experience symptoms and/or refractoriness to standard of care treatments. As a result, most patients undergo a further intensification of therapy to optimize symptom control with a subsequent increased risk of side effects. Raising awareness about the relevance of evaluating aeroallergen sensitizations in asthmatic patients is a key step in better informing clinical practice while new molecular tools, such as the component resolved diagnosis, may be of help in refining the relationship between sensitization and therapeutic recommendations. In addition, patient care should benefit from reliable, easy-to-measure and clinically accessible biomarkers that are able to predict outcome and disease monitoring. To attain a personalized asthma management and to guide adequate treatment decisions, it is of paramount importance to expand clinicians' knowledge about the tangled relationship between asthma and allergy from a molecular perspective. Our review explores the relevance of allergen testing along the asthma patient's journey, with a special focus on recurrent wheezing children. Here, we also discuss the unresolved issues regarding currently available biomarkers and summarize the evidence supporting the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin as promising biomarker.

A Real-World Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of Biologicals and Bronchial Thermoplasty for Severe Refractory Asthma (BIOTERM)

Background

The important progress made on asthma phenotyping encouraged the development of new therapeutic strategies, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and bronchial thermoplasty (BT). The aim of this study is to compare patients diagnosed with severe refractory asthma (SRA) who are currently being treated with omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab or BT and to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments over a 12-month observation period.

Methods

Overall, 199 consecutive patients with SRA were included. The cohort was selected referring to the eligibility criteria for all available biologics and BT.

Results

Among 32 patients treated with benralizumab, we found a 16.7% reduction in hospitalizations, a 66.6% reduction in exacerbations (p = 0.0001) and the greater improvement in FEV1 (+ 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Among omalizumab group (54 patients), there was a 85.7% (p = 0.012) reduction in hospitalizations and a 88.8% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. In the mepolizumab group (83 patients), we found a 89.5% (p = 0.02) reduction in hospitalizations and a 92.1% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. BT subgroup (30 patients) showed a 93.7% (p = 0.001) reduction in hospitalizations and a 73.5% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. The best results in terms of OCS sparing effect were obtained by BT (- 76%, p < 0.0001) and mepolizumab (- 90.2%, p = 0.002). Omalizumab showed the highest percentage of super responder patients.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare all marketed mAbs with BT, ending in more comprehensive and applicable results to clinical practice. All biologics, to varying degrees, reduced hospitalizations, exacerbations, and OCS use. The starting point for patients in the BT group was worse regarding hospitalizations, exacerbations and OCS, but despite this, even this non-pharmacological option obtained positive results, comparable to biologics.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Mepolizumab Effectiveness in a Real-Life Setting

INTRODUCTION

Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the principal cytokine regulating eosinophil growth, differentiation, activation, and expression. It is a specific target of mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. This new drug can improve symptoms, reduce asthma exacerbations and steroid use. Few data are available on its efficacy for nasal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the all-round clinical impact of mepolizumab in a real-life setting, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the drug in severe eosinophilic asthma patients.

POPULATION AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected the clinical and functional data on 27 patients (16 males) affected with severe eosinophilic asthma, diagnosed at the Siena Regional Referral Centre and monitored for 6 months. Clinical, immunological, and functional data at baseline and follow-up were entered in a database together with comorbidities, number of exacerbations, steroid treatment, multiple-flow exhaled nitric oxide, and validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in asthma exacerbations was observed in all patients after 6 months of the biological therapy (p = 0.0009), and 4/6 patients discontinued chronic oral steroids. A significant improvement in ACT, FEV1, SNOT22, and alveolar nitric oxide was observed after 1 month of mepolizumab (p = 0.003, p = 0.007, p = 0.047, and p = 0.019, respectively) and maintained after 6 months of treatment. After 6 months, FeNO 50 was reduced as well (p = 0.030). Mepolizumab was very well tolerated, and no major side effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that mepolizumab is effective in improving control of asthma, lung function parameters, exhaled biomarkers, and nasal symptoms in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

Minimal clinically important difference for asthma endpoints: an expert consensus report

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be defined as the smallest change or difference in an outcome measure that is perceived as beneficial and would lead to a change in the patient's medical management.

The aim of the current expert consensus report is to provide a “state-of-the-art” review of the currently available literature evidence about MCID for end-points to monitor asthma control, in order to facilitate optimal disease management and identify unmet needs in the field to guide future research.

A series of MCID cut-offs are currently available in literature and validated among populations of asthmatic patients, with most of the evidence focusing on outcomes as patient reported outcomes, lung function and exercise tolerance. On the contrary, only scant and partial data are available for inflammatory biomarkers. These clearly represent the most interesting target for future development in diagnosis and clinical management of asthma, particularly in view of the several biologic drugs in the pipeline, for which regulatory agencies will soon require personalised proof of efficacy and treatment response predictors.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) cut-offs in asthma are validated for patient reported outcomes and lung function, but not for inflammatory biomarkers. MCID represents a key target for future development in asthma management. http://bit.ly/33hcWIe