Efficacy of Biologics in Patients with Allergic Severe Asthma, Overall and by Blood Eosinophil Count: A Literature Review

Patients with uncontrolled, allergic severe asthma may be prescribed biologic therapies to reduce exacerbations and improve disease control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these therapies have differed in design, with varying results overall and by baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). This study describes published annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) reductions from RCTs in patients with allergic severe asthma, overall and by baseline BEC category. A literature search was performed to identify published phase 3 RCT data of US Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for severe asthma in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and confirmed sensitization to perennial aeroallergens. Analyses focused on AAER reduction versus placebo in the overall population and/or in those with an elevated or low BEC at baseline or screening. Baseline serum total immunoglobulin E levels varied between RCT populations. In patients with allergic severe asthma across all BEC categories, data were available for tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab and omalizumab only; the greatest AAER reduction was observed with tezepelumab. In patients with allergic severe asthma and BECs of ≥ 260 cells/µL or ≥ 300 cells/μL, AAER reductions were observed with all biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and omalizumab); the greatest AAER reduction was observed with tezepelumab and the smallest AAER reduction was observed with omalizumab. In patients with allergic severe asthma and BECs of < 260 cells/µL or < 300 cells/μL (regardless of historical BEC), an AAER reduction was observed with tezepelumab but not with benralizumab or omalizumab. Differential mechanisms of action may explain the differences in results observed between biologics. Among patients with allergic severe asthma, the efficacy of biologics in RCTs varied considerably overall and by BEC. Tezepelumab was the only biologic to demonstrate AAER reductions consistently across all subgroups. These differences can inform provider treatment decisions when selecting biologic treatments for patients with allergic severe asthma.

Assessing the relevance of allergenic pollen in indoor environments-current knowledge base and research needs

Airborne pollen allergens-a relevant component of bioaerosols and, therefore, of airborne particulate matter-are considered an important metric in air quality assessments. Although the measurement of airborne pollen allergen concentrations in outdoor environments (namely, in urban areas) has been recognized as a key environmental health indicator, no such obligation exists for indoor environments (dwellings or occupational settings). However, people spend most of their daily time (80-90%) indoors, where the majority of their exposure to air pollution, including pollen allergens, occurs. Nonetheless, the relative importance of airborne pollen allergen exposure indoors differs from outdoors because of differences in pollen loads, sources, dispersion, and degree of penetration from the outdoor surroundings, as well as the differences in the allergenic pollen profiles. In this brief review, we mined the literature over the last 10 years to summarize what existing measurements reveal about the relevance of airborne allergenic pollen in indoor environments. The research priorities on this topic are presented, highlighting the challenges and the motivations for obtaining pollen data in built environments which are key to understand the extent and mechanisms of human exposure to airborne pollen allergens. Thus, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the relevance of airborne allergenic pollen in indoor environments, highlighting knowledge gaps and research needs related to their health effects.