Heterogeneous Response of Airway Eosinophilia to Anti-IL-5 Biologics in Severe Asthma Patients

Many questions concerning responders (R) and nonresponders (NR) in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) after blocking the IL-5 (interleukin 5) pathway are still not clear, especially regarding the early parameters of response to biologics in personalized treatment strategies. We evaluated 17 SEA patients treated with anti-IL-5 biologics (16 patients mepolizumab, one patient benralizumab) before the introduction of biologics, and at a week 16 follow-up. Clinical, cellular and immunological parameters in peripheral blood were measured in R and NR. Sputum induction with the measurement of cellular and immunological parameters was performed at 16 weeks only. There were 12 R and 5 NR to biologics. After 16 weeks, there was a significant improvement in percentages of FEV1 (p = 0.001), and asthma control test (ACT) (p = 0.001) in the R group, but not in NR. After 16 weeks, the eosinophils in induced sputum were 27.0% in NR and 4.5% in R (p = 0.05), with no difference in IL-5 concentrations (p = 0.743). Peripheral eosinophilia decreased significantly in NR (p = 0.032) and R (p = 0.002). In patients with SEA on anti-IL-5 therapy, there was a marked difference in airway eosinophilic inflammation between R and NR already at 16 weeks, after anti-IL-5 introduction.

A new delivery device for benralizumab (autoinjector, pen-injector device) in the clinical practice of treating severe eosinophilic asthma: Conclusion of the Expert Council

The emergence of new means of administering genetically-engineered biological drugs, such as an autoinjector (pen injector device), can positively affect the organizational aspects of treating patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SA) who need biological therapy.The aim. To determine the place of a new delivery device for benralizumab (autoinjector, pen injector device) in the clinical practice of treating eosinophilic SA.Results. The expert council considered the results of the latest clinical studies and real practice data on the use of genetically-engineered biological drugs in the form of an autoinjector. The experts discussed the safety and efficacy of this delivery device and recommended considering the possibility of switching eosinophilic SA patients to self-administration of genetically-engineered biological drugs (autoinjector form) at home. This treatment tactic is especially relevant in the current epidemiological situation since it will reduce the risks of infection compared to planned medical care in inpatient or outpatient treatment settings and reduce the burden for healthcare workers.Conclusion. The practice of switching eosinophilic SA patients to self-administration of biologics in the form of an autoinjector (pen injector device) can improve the adherence to biological therapy and quality of life of this group of patients.

Phenotype and severity of asthma determines bronchial epithelial immune responses to a viral mimic

BackgroundAsthma is characterised by an aggravated immune response to respiratory viral infections: This phenomenon is a clinically well-recognised driver of acute exacerbations, but how different phenotypes of asthma respond immunologically to virus is unclear.ObjectivesTo describe the association between different phenotypes and severity of asthma and bronchial epithelial immune responses to viral stimulation.MethodsIn the Immunoreact study, healthy subjects (n=10) and 50 patients with asthma were included; 30 (60%) were atopic, and 34 (68%) were eosinophilic; 14 (28%) had severe asthma. All participants underwent bronchoscopy with collection of bronchial brushings. Bronchial epithelial cells (BECs) were expanded and stimulated with the viral replication mimic poly (I:C) (TLR3 agonist) in vitro. The expression of TLR3-induced pro-inflammatory and anti-viral responses of BECs were analysed using RT-qPCR and multiplex ELISA and compared across asthma phenotypes and severity of disease.ResultsPatients with atopic asthma had increased induction of IL-4, IFN-β, IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-1β after poly (I:C) stimulation compared to non-atopic patients, whereas in patients with eosinophilic asthma only IL-6 and IL-8 induction was higher than in non-eosinophilic asthma. Patients with severe asthma displayed a decreased antiviral IFN-β, and increased expression of IL-8, most pronounced in atopic and eosinophilic asthmatics. Furthermore, induction of IL-33 in response to poly (I:C) was increased in severe atopic and in severe eosinophilic asthma, but TSLP only in severe eosinophilic asthma.ConclusionsThe bronchial epithelial immune response to a viral mimic stimulation differs between asthma phenotypes and severities, which may be important to consider when targeting novel asthma treatments.

Clusters of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in a Korean Asthma Cohort

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Targeted therapies have broadened the available treatment options for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). However, differences in the magnitude of treatment responses among patients indicate the presence of various underlying pathophysiological processes and patient subgroups. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> We aimed to describe the characteristics of SEA and identify its patient subgroups. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Clinical data from the Cohort for Reality and Evolution of Adult Asthma in Korea were analyzed. Cluster analysis was performed among those with SEA using 5 variables, namely, prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s, body mass index, age at symptom onset, smoking amount, and blood eosinophil counts. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients with SEA showed prevalent sensitization to aeroallergens, decreased lung function, and poor asthma control status. Cluster analysis revealed 3 distinctive subgroups among patients with SEA. Cluster 1 (<i>n</i> = 177) consisted of patients reporting the lowest blood eosinophils (median, 346.8 cells/μL) and modest severe asthma with preserved lung function during the 12-month treatment period. Cluster 2 (<i>n</i> = 42) predominantly included smoking males with severe persistent airway obstruction and moderate eosinophilia (median, 451.8 cells/μL). Lastly, cluster 3 (<i>n</i> = 95) included patients with the most severe asthma, the highest eosinophil levels (median, 817.5 cells/μL), and good treatment response in terms of improved lung function and control status. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Three subgroups were identified in SEA through the cluster analysis. The distinctive features of each cluster may help physicians predict patients who will respond to biologics with greater magnitude of clinical improvement. Further research regarding the underlying pathophysiology and clinical importance of each subgroup is warranted.

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

<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.

Switch from Omalizumab to Benralizumab in Allergic Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Real-Life Experience from Southern Italy

Background. The wide availability of monoclonal antibodies for the add-on therapy of severe asthma currently allows for the personalization of biologic treatment by selecting the most appropriate drug for each patient. However, subjects with overlapping allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes can be often eligible to more than one biologic, so that the first pharmacologic choice can be quite challenging for clinicians. Within such a context, the aim of our real-life investigation was to verify whether allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by an initial biologic treatment with omalizumab, could experience better therapeutic results from a pharmacologic shift to benralizumab. Patients and methods. Twenty allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, unsuccessfully treated with omalizumab and then switched to benralizumab, were assessed for at least 1 year in order to detect eventual changes in disease exacerbations, symptom control, oral corticosteroid intake, lung function, and blood eosinophils. Results. In comparison to the previous omalizumab therapy, after 1 year of treatment with benralizumab our patients experienced significant improvements in asthma exacerbation rate (p < 0.01), rescue medication need (p < 0.001), asthma control test (ACT) score (p < 0.05), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (p < 0.05), and blood eosinophil count (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, with respect to the end of omalizumab treatment, the score of sino-nasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22) significantly decreased after therapy with benralizumab (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The results of this real-life study suggest that the pharmacologic shift from omalizumab to benralizumab can be a valuable therapeutic approach for allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by anti-IgE treatment.