scholarly journals Reslizumab versus placebo for poorly controlled, severe eosinophilic asthma: Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (9) ◽  
pp. 884-896
Author(s):  
Milos Milosavljevic ◽  
Slobodan Jankovic ◽  
Ana Pejcic ◽  
Jasmina Milovanovic ◽  
Valentina Opancina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Recombinant Dna ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

Background/Aim. Reslizumab is humanized monoclonal antibody produced by recombinant DNA technology which binds to circulating interleukin-5 (IL-5) and down-regulates the IL-5 signaling pathway. Reslizumab is indicated for the add-on maintenance treatment of patients 18 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma phenotype whose symptoms were inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of reslizumab compared to placebo in patients suffering from inadequately controlled, moderateto- severe asthma with elevated blood eosinophil counts. Methods. Our meta-analysis was based on systematic search of literature and selection of high-quality evidence according to pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effects of reslizumab and placebo were summarized using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 and heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochrane Q test and I? values. Several types of bias were assessed and publication bias shown by Funnel plot and Egger?s regression. Results. The meta-analysis included 5 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg produced substantial improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1. second (FEV 1) (mean difference 0.15 [0.10, 0.21]) and in forced vital capacity (FVC) (mean difference 0.21 [0.09, 0.32]) over the 15 or 16-week treatment period, substantial decrease versus placebo in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score (mean difference -0.28 [-0.41, -0.16]), and substantial increase vs. placebo from baseline in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) total score (mean difference 0.24 [0.06, 0.43]). Also, reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg caused less adverse events versus placebo (OR 0.67 [0.51, 0.88]), especially asthma worsening (OR 0.53 [0.36, 0.77]) or bronchitis (OR 0.42 [0.24, 0.74]). Conclusion. On the basis of published clinical trials reslizumab could be considered as an effective and safe therapeutic option for severe, poorly controlled eosinophilic asthma for the time being.

Mepolizumab Is an Effective Option in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Regardless of Baseline Features: Single-Center Real-Life Data

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Betül Özdel Öztürk ◽  
Zeynep Yavuz ◽  
Dilek Eraslan ◽  
Dilşad Mungan ◽  
Yavuz Selim Demirel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Quality Of Life Questionnaire ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Median Dosage ◽  
Act Score

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Mepolizumab has been approved as a treatment option for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients in our country. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and functional efficacy of mepolizumab in this group of patients in real life as well as the response rates to mepolizumab and the possible factors affecting the response. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The study was a retrospective chart review of patients with SEA treated with mepolizumab. The data were collected at baseline, and at the 6th and 12th month. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 62 patients (41F/21M) with a mean age of 44.41 ± 13.24 years were included in the study. They had poor symptom control with a mean asthma control test (ACT) score of 16.61 ± 5.59, frequent exacerbations with a mean of 3.4 ± 3.7 in the previous 12 months, and 80.6% required daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) with a median dosage of 8 mg/day as methylprednisolone. The ACT score increased to 22.47 ± 3.18 and 22.03 ± 4.31, respectively, and blood eosinophil count decreased from 1,146/μL to 89/μL and 85/μL at the 6th and 12th month, respectively. The mean FEV1 at baseline was 2.102 L there was an increase of 0.373 L at 6th month and 0.596 L at 12th month. The percentage of regular users of OCS decreased to 66.0% at 6th month with a median dosage of 4 mg and 52.6% at 12th month with a median dosage of 2 mg. Mepolizumab reduced the rate of exacerbations compared with the previous year from a mean of 3.40 to 0.15 at 6th month and 0.36 at 12th month. There was a significant improvement in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), and Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores at both of time points. The rate of responders and super-responders at 6th month was 60% and 28%, respectively, and consequently, the overall response rate was 88%. At the 12th month, the super-responder rate increased to 44.7% as well as the overall response to 89.4%. The only difference between the nonresponders, responders, and super-responders at the 6th and 12th month was whether regular daily OCS was used pre-mepolizumab. All nonresponders at both 6th and 12th month were using OCS regularly, whereas most of super-responder used the OCS only during exacerbations. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Mepolizumab effectively reduced asthma exacerbations, steroid requirement, blood eosinophil counts and improved asthma control, pulmonary function, sinonasal symptoms and quality of life. Our data suggest that mepolizumab would be effective in selected patients in real-life settings.

Diagnosis and Management of Severe Asthma

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (01) ◽  
pp. 091-099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kian Fan Chung
Keyword(s):  
Severe Asthma ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Immunoglobulin E ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Exhaled Breath ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Asthma Patients ◽  
Long Acting

AbstractSevere therapy-resistant asthma has been defined as “asthma which requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus a second controller (and/or systemic corticosteroids) to prevent it from becoming ‘uncontrolled’ or which remains ‘uncontrolled’ despite this therapy”. Patients who usually present with ‘difficult-to-treat asthma’ should first be assessed to determine whether he/she has asthma with the exclusion of other diagnoses and if so, whether the asthma can be classified as severe therapy-resistant. This necessitates an assessment of adherence to medications, confounding factors, and comorbidities. Increasingly, management of severe therapy-resistant asthma will be helped by the determination of phenotypes to optimize responses to existing and new therapies. Severe asthma patients are usually on a combination of high dose ICS and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) and, in addition, are often on a maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids. Phenotyping can be informed by measuring blood eosinophil counts and the level of nitric oxide in exhaled breath, and the use of sputum granulocytic counts. Severe allergic asthma and severe eosinophilic asthma are two defined phenotypes for which there are efficacious targeted biologic therapies currently available, namely anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) and anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibodies, respectively. Further progress will be realized with the definition of noneosinophilic or non-T2 phenotypes. It will be important for patients with severe asthma to be ultimately investigated and managed in specialized severe asthma centers.

scholarly journals Efficacy Of 100 Mg SC Mepolizumab For Severe Eosinophilic Asthma (SEA) Across Blood Eosinophil Counts: Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 143 (2) ◽  
pp. AB101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven W. Yancey ◽  
Frank Albers ◽  
Daniel J. Bratton ◽  
Eric S. Bradford ◽  
Namhee Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Eosinophil Counts

scholarly journals Benefit of switching to mepolizumab from omalizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma based on patient characteristics

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Liu ◽  
Bradley Chipps ◽  
Xavier Munoz ◽  
Gilles Devouassoux ◽  
Miguel Bergna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Asthma Control Questionnaire ◽  
Post Hoc Analysis ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract Background The OSMO study assessed the efficacy of switching to mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma that was uncontrolled whilst receiving omalizumab. The objective of this analysis was to assess the proportion of patients achieving pre-defined improvements in up to four efficacy outcomes and the relationship between patient baseline characteristics and treatment response. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of OSMO study data (GSK ID:204471; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02654145). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, other controller(s) and omalizumab subcutaneously (≥ 4 months) were switched to mepolizumab 100 mg administered subcutaneously. Endpoints included the proportion of responders—i.e. patients achieving a pre-defined clinical improvement in ≥ 1 of the following outcomes: (1) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score (≥ 0.5-points), (2) St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥ 4-points), (3) pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1; ≥ 100 mL), all at Week 32, and (4) annualised rate of clinically significant exacerbations (≥ 50% reduction). Results Of the 145 patients included, 94%, 83%, 63% and 31% were responders for ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3 and 4 outcomes, respectively; 75% and 78% were ACQ-5 and SGRQ score responders, and 50% and 69% were FEV1 and exacerbation responders. Subgroup analyses demonstrated improvements irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, prior omalizumab treatment regimen/duration, comorbidities, prior exacerbation history, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores, and body weight/body mass index. Conclusions After switching to mepolizumab, almost all patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma on omalizumab achieved a beneficial response in ≥ 1 clinical outcome. Improvements were observed regardless of baseline characteristics. Trial registration This manuscript is a post hoc analysis of data from the OSMO study. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654145. Registered January 13, 2016.

Impact of Treatment for Nasal Cavity Disorders on Sleep Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110295
Author(s):  
Jacob Fried ◽  
Erick Yuen ◽  
Kathy Zhang ◽  
Andraia Li ◽  
Nicholas R. Rowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Nasal Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Subjective Sleep Quality ◽  
Subjective Sleep ◽  
The Impact

Objective To determine the impact of treatment for patients with nasal obstruction secondary to allergic rhinitis (AR) and nasal septal deviation (NSD) on sleep quality. Data Sources Primary studies were identified though PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Review Methods A systematic review was performed by querying databases for articles published through August 2020. Studies were included that reported on objective sleep parameters (apnea-hypopnea index) and sinonasal and sleep-specific patient-reported outcome measures: Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (EpSS), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results The database search yielded 1414 unique articles, of which 28 AR and 7 NSD studies were utilized for meta-analysis. A total of 9037 patients (8515 with AR, 522 with NSD) were identified with a mean age of 35.0 years (35.3 for AR, 34.0 for NSD). Treatment for AR and NSD significantly improved subjective sleep quality. For AR, the EpSS mean difference was −1.5 (95% CI, –2.4 to –0.5; P = .002) and for the PSQI, –1.7 (95% CI, –2.1 to –1.2; P < .00001). For NSD, the EpSS mean difference was −3.2 (95% CI, –4.2 to –2.2; P < .00001) and for the PSQI, –3.4 (95% CI, –6.1 to –0.6; P = .02). Conclusion Subjective sleep quality significantly improved following treatment for AR and NSD. There were insufficient data to demonstrate that objective metrics of sleep quality similarly improved.

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in spinal cord injury, early to advance to clinical trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis on animal studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 197140092110268
Author(s):  
Seyedeh Niloufar Rafiei Alavi ◽  
Arian Madani Neishaboori ◽  
Mahmoud Yousefifard
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Animal Models ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave ◽  
Shockwave Therapy ◽  
Cord Injury

Background As there is no consensus over the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the management of spinal cord injury complications, the current meta-analysis aims to investigate preclinical evidence on the matter. Methods The search strategy was developed based on keywords related to ‘spinal cord injury’ and ‘extracorporeal shockwave therapy’. A primary search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2020. Studies which administered extracorporeal shockwave therapy on spinal cord injury animal models and evaluated motor function and/or histological findings were included. The standardised mean difference with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results Seven articles were included. Locomotion was significantly improved in the extracorporeal shockwave therapy treated group (standardised mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.05–2.31, P=0.032). It seems that the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy with an energy flux density of 0.1 mJ/mm2 is higher than 0.04 mJ/mm2 ( P=0.044). Shockwave therapy was found to increase axonal sprouting (standardised mean difference 1.31, 95% CI 0.65, 1.96), vascular endothelial growth factor tissue levels (standardised mean difference 1.36, 95% CI 0.54, 2.18) and cell survival (standardised mean difference 2.49, 95% CI 0.93, 4.04). It also significantly prevents axonal degeneration (standardised mean difference 2.25, 95% CI 1.47, 3.02). Conclusion Extracorporeal shockwave therapy significantly improves locomotor recovery in spinal cord injury animal models through neural tissue regeneration. Nonetheless, in spite of the promising results and clinical application of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in various conditions, current evidence implies that designing clinical trials on extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the management of spinal cord injury may not be soon. Hence, further preclinical studies with the effort to reach the safest and the most efficient treatment protocol are needed.

scholarly journals Clinical and economic consequences of switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanna Elisiana Carpagnano ◽  
Emanuela Resta ◽  
Massimiliano Povero ◽  
Corrado Pelaia ◽  
Mariella D’Amato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Onset ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Healthcare Spending ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Asthma Control Test ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Serum Ige ◽  
Asthmatic Patients ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

AbstractSevere asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of switching from omalizumab (OMA) to mepolizumab (MEP) in patients eligible for both biologics, but not optimally controlled by omalizumab. We retrospectively enrolled uncontrolled severe asthmatic patients who switched from OMA to MEP during the last two years. Information included blood eosinophil count, asthma control test (ACT), spirometry, serum IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), OCS intake, drugs, exacerbations/hospitalizations, visits and diagnostic exams. Within the perspective of Italian National Health System, a pre- and post-MEP 12-month standardized total cost per patient was calculated. 33 patients were enrolled: five males, mean age 57 years, disease onset 24 years. At OMA discontinuation, 88% were OCS-dependent with annual mean rate of 4.0 clinically significant exacerbations, 0.30 exacerbations needing emergency room visits or hospitalization; absenteeism due to disease was 10.4 days per patient. Switch to MEP improved all clinical outcomes, reducing total exacerbation rate (RR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03–0.14), OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.005–0.08), and number of lost working days (Δ = − 7.9, 95% CI − 11.2 to − 4.6). Pulmonary function improved, serum IgE, FeNO and eosinophils decreased. Mean annual costs were €12,239 for OMA and €12,639 for MEP (Δ = €400, 95% CI − 1588–2389); the increment due to drug therapy (+ €1,581) was almost offset by savings regarding all other cost items (− €1,181). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not controlled by OMA, experienced comprehensive benefits by switching to MEP with only slight increases in economic costs.

scholarly journals Clinical and Economic Consequences of Switching From Omalizumab to Mepolizumab in Uncontrolled Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: an Observational Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanna Elisiana Carpagnano ◽  
Emanuela Resta ◽  
Massimiliano Povero ◽  
Corrado Pelaia ◽  
Mariella D'Amato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nitric Oxide ◽  
Asthma Control ◽  
Exhaled Nitric Oxide ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Serum Ige ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Oral Corticosteroids

Abstract Background: Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids, which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab in patients eligible for both biologics, but not optimally controlled by omalizumab.Methods: We retrospectively enrolled uncontrolled severe asthmatic patients, referred to seven asthma clinics in Italy, who switched from omalizumab to mepolizumab during the last two years. Clinical, functional, and laboratory information included blood eosinophil count, asthma control test, spirometry, serum IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, oral corticosteroids intake, use of controller and rescue drugs, exacerbations/hospitalizations, visits and diagnostic exams. Within the perspective of Italian National Health System, a pre- and post-mepolizumab 12-month standardized total cost per patient was calculated.Results: 33 patients were enrolled: 5 males and 28 females, mean age 57 years, mean disease onset 24 years. At omalizumab discontinuation, 88% were oral corticosteroids-dependent with annual mean rate of 4.0 clinically significant exacerbations, 0.30 exacerbations needing emergency room visits or hospitalization; absenteeism due to disease was 10.4 days per patient. Switch to mepolizumab improved all clinical outcomes, reducing total exacerbation rate (RR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.14), oral corticosteroids -dependent patients (OR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.005 to 0.08), and the number of lost working days because of uncontrolled disease (Δ = -7.9, 95% CI -11.2 to -4.6). Pulmonary function improved, as well as serum IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide and eosinophils decreased. Mean annual costs were € 12,239 for omalizumab and € 12,639 for mepolizumab (Δ = € 400, 95% CI -1,588 to 2,389); the increment due to drug therapy (+ € 1,581) was almost offset by savings regarding all other cost items (- € 1,181). Conclusions: Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not controlled by omalizumab, experienced comprehensive benefits in asthma control by switching to mepolizumab. These relevant improvements were burdened by only very slight increases in economic costs.

scholarly journals Stopping versus continuing long-term mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma (COMET study)

2021 ◽  
pp. 2100396
Author(s):  
Wendy C. Moore ◽  
Oliver Kornmann ◽  
Marc Humbert ◽  
Claude Poirier ◽  
Elisabeth H. Bel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Asthma Control ◽  
Emergency Department Visit ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Clinically Significant

The long-term efficacy and safety of mepolizumab for treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are well established. Here, we examine the clinical impact of stopping mepolizumab after long-term use.COMET (NCT02555371) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients who had completed COLUMBA (NCT01691859) or COSMEX (NCT02135692) and received continuous mepolizumab treatment for ≥3 years were randomised 1:1 to stop (switch to placebo) or continue subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Primary endpoint: time to first clinically significant exacerbation; secondary endpoints: time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit, time to decrease in asthma control (≥0.5-point increase in Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score from COMET baseline), and blood eosinophil count ratio to COMET baseline. Safety was assessed.Patients stopping (n=151) versus continuing (n=144) mepolizumab had significantly shorter times to first clinically significant exacerbation (hazard ratio: 1.61 [95% confidence interval: 1.17,2.22]; p=0.004) and decrease in asthma control (hazard ratio: 1.52 [1.13,2.02]; p=0.005), and higher blood eosinophil counts at Week 52 (270 versus 40 cells·µL−1; ratio [stopping versus continuing]: 6.19 [4.89, 7.83]; p<0.001). Differences in efficacy outcomes between groups were observed when assessed from Week 12 (16 weeks after last mepolizumab dose). Exacerbations requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit were rare. Adverse events in patients continuing mepolizumab were consistent with previous studies. For patients who stopped mepolizumab, the safety profile was consistent with other eosinophilic asthma populations.Patients who stopped mepolizumab had an increase in exacerbations and reduced asthma control versus those who continued.

scholarly journals Precision medicine applications for severe asthma

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 117-135
Author(s):  
Orit Gourgy Hacohen ◽  
Shai Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Severe Asthma ◽  
Oral Corticosteroid ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
New Treatment

Asthma is a heterogeneous condition in which multiple pathological pathways manifest with similar symptoms. Severe asthma (SA) is challenging to manage and comprises a significant health and economic burden. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to define different clinical phenotypes that translate into biological endotypes, with the goal of tailoring treatment based on precision medicine. This review summarizes the current evidence for the treatments of SA, and in particular, the biologic treatments that are currently available: omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. We found only limited high-quality direct evidence regarding treatment with anti-IgE (omalizumab) in SA patients. Data regarding anti-interleukin (IL)-5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab) showed beneficial effects in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) with different levels of blood eosinophils used in clinical trials. Dupilumab, anti-IL-4/IL-13, was shown to be effective in SEA and is the only agent currently FDA-approved for the indication of oral corticosteroid dependent asthma, regardless of the blood eosinophil level. This review also summarizes the existing knowledge regarding the characteristics of the patient who may respond to the different therapies. As of today, more studies are needed to better understand the diverse mechanisms that underlie SA phenotypes. We have not yet adequately reached the goal of precision medicine. Additional studies are necessary in order to find novel surrogate markers that can predict the response to a specific biologic therapy, especially in patients who are oral corticosteroid dependent. In addition, efforts must be invested into research looking for new treatment options for patients with non-type-2 inflammation SA. Statement of novelty: we review the current evidence regarding tailored treatment therapies in SA, with a particular focus on the knowledge regarding patient selection for specific biologic treatments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document