Project description:Asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory disease characterized by reversible airway obstruction and airway hyperreactivity to various environmental stimuli, leading to recurrent cough, dyspnea, and wheezing episodes. Regarding inflammatory mechanisms, type 2/eosinophilic inflammation along with activated mast cells is the major one; however, diverse mechanisms, including structural cells-derived and non-type 2/neutrophilic inflammations are involved, presenting heterogenous phenotypes. Although most asthmatic patients could be properly controlled by the guided treatment, patients with severe asthma (SA; classified as a treatment-refractory group) suffer from uncontrolled symptoms with frequent asthma exacerbations even on regular anti-inflammatory medications, raising needs for additional controllers, including biologics that target specific molecules found in asthmatic airway, and achieving the precision medicine for asthma. This review summarizes the immunologic basis of airway inflammatory mechanisms and current biologics for SA in order to address unmet needs for future targets.
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about adherence to asthma biologics.Research questionIs adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with subsequent asthma biologic adherence?Study design and methodsWe analyzed individuals with asthma who started asthma biologics in the OptumLab Data Warehouse and used that data until October 2019. We calculated proportion days covered (PDC) for ICS ± long-acting β-agonists in the 6 months before and after asthma biologics were started and asthma biologic PDC for the first 6 months of use. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75, ICS PDC ≥0.75 during the 6-month period after asthma biologic were started, and achievement of a ≥50% reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use.ResultsWe identified 5,319 people who started asthma biologics. The mean PDC for asthma biologics was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75-0.77) in the first 6 months after starting, higher than the mean PDCs for ICS in the 6 months before (0.44 [95% CI, 0.43-0.45]) and after (0.40 [95% CI, 0.39-0.40]) starting the asthma biologic. PDC ≥0.75 for ICS 6 months before index biologic use is associated with PDC for asthma biologics ≥0.75 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) and for ICS during the first 6 months of biologic use (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 8.55-11.53). Neither ICS PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14) nor asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36) is associated with a statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use among people with any exacerbation in the 6 months before first use.InterpretationAdherence to asthma biologic is higher than to ICS and is associated with different factors.
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited information about outcomes associated with stopping asthma biologics.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes in people who stopped or continued asthma biologics.MethodsWe identified a cohort of people with asthma who stopped or continued asthma biologics in the Optum Labs Database Warehouse, using a propensity matching method for case and control groups with the variables of age, sex, race, region, insurance, income, specialist access, Charlson comorbidity, specific medical conditions, pre-index exacerbation count, pre-index rescue inhaler pharmacy fills, and pre-index inhaled corticosteroid with or without long-acting β-agonist pharmacy fills. Primary outcome used to assess failure of stopping was an increase of 50% or more in the asthma exacerbation rate in the 6 months after discontinuing the biologic compared with the 6-month period before biologic initiation.ResultsAmong a cohort of 4960 asthma biologic users, 1249 were observed to stop use after 6 to 12 months of use. We identified a matched cohort of 1247 stoppers and 1247 people who continued biologic use for at least 18 months. In the first 6 months after stopping or sham stopping, 10.2% of stoppers and 9.5% of continuers had an increase of 50% or more in asthma exacerbations. We found a similar adjusted odds of failing among stoppers and continuers (odds ratio = 1.085; 95% confidence interval, 0.833-1.413).ConclusionsAn increase in asthma exacerbations is infrequently observed in people who stopped asthma biologics and was observed at similar rates as in matched controls who continued asthma biologics.
Project description:The European Respiratory Biologics Forum gathered participants from 21 countries in Madrid, Spain, to discuss the management and treatment of severe asthma in the era of biologics. The current insights on the pathophysiology of severe asthma were discussed, as well as the role of respiratory biologics in clinical practice and strategies for eliminating chronic use of oral corticosteroids. The participants also highlighted the key challenges in identifying patients with severe asthma based on phenotypes, biomarkers and treatable traits, and the existing problems in patient referral to specialist care. The monitoring of treatment was debated and the need for a change towards precision medicine and personalised care was emphasised throughout the meeting. This review provides a summary of the discussions and highlights important concerns identified by the participants regarding the current management of severe asthma.
Project description:Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma have disproportionally high morbidity and healthcare utilization as compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Although treatment options for these patients were previously limited, with unacceptable side effects, the emergence of biologic therapies for the treatment of asthma has provided promising targeted therapy for these patients. Biologic therapies target specific inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma, particularly in patients with an endotype driven by type 2 (T2) inflammation. In addition to anti-IgE therapy that has improved outcomes in allergic asthma for more than a decade, three anti-IL-5 biologics and one anti-IL-4R biologic have recently emerged as promising treatments for T2 asthma. These targeted therapies have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce oral corticosteroid use, and improve quality of life in appropriately selected patients. In addition to the currently approved biologic agents, several biologics targeting upstream inflammatory mediators are in clinical trials, with possible approval on the horizon. This article reviews the mechanism of action, indications, expected benefits, and side effects of each of the currently approved biologics for severe uncontrolled asthma and discusses promising therapeutic targets for the future.
Project description:BackgroundLimited understanding exists regarding the progression trajectory of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients on type 2 biologics therapies.ObjectiveWe aim to explore distinct longitudinal phenotypes of these patients based on crucial asthma biomarkers.MethodsWe enrolled 101 adult patients with SEA. Of these, 51 were treated with anti-IL5/IL5Rα or anti-IL5/IL5RαR antibody, and 50 with anti-IL-4Rα antibody. Multi-trajectory analysis, an extension of univariate group-based trajectory modeling, was used to categorize patients based on their trajectories of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), blood eosinophil counts (BEC), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels at baseline, and after 1, 6, and 12 months of treatment. Associations between trajectory-based clusters and clinical parameters were examined.ResultsAmong anti-IL5/IL5Rα antibody-treated patients, 2 clusters were identified. The cluster characterized by higher baseline BEC and lower FEV1 showed a better response, with improvements in FEV1 and reductions in BEC over time. Among anti-IL-4Rα antibody-treated, 3 clusters were identified. Clusters with moderate BEC and FeNO at baseline demonstrated better improvements in FEV1 and reductions in FeNO, despite increased BEC during follow-up. Conversely, individuals with extremely low FeNO and high BEC at baseline were more likely to experience poorer progression, demonstrating an increase in FeNO and a reduction in FEV1.ConclusionTo optimally monitor treatment response in SEA patients on type 2 biologics, integrating longitudinal biomarker features is essential.
Project description:Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide and poses a large socioeconomic burden, particularly in the 5% to 10% of severe asthmatics. So far, each entry of new biologics in clinical trials has led to high expectations for treating all severe asthma forms, but the outcome has only been successful if the biologic, as add-on treatment, targeted specific patient subgroups. Indeed, we now realize that asthma is a heterogeneous disease with multiple phenotypes, based on distinct pathophysiological mechanisms, called endotypes. Thus, asthma therapy is gradually moving to a personalized medicine approach, tailored to individual's asthma endotypes identified through biomarkers. Here, we review the clinical efficacy of antibody-related therapeutics undergoing clinical trials, or those already approved, for the treatment of severe type 2 asthma. Biologics targeting type 2 cytokines have shown consistent efficacy, especially in patients with evidence of type 2 inflammation, suggesting that the future of asthma biologics is promising.
Project description:Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease resulting in airflow obstruction, which in part can become irreversible to conventional therapies, defining the concept of airway remodeling. The introduction of biologics in severe asthma has led in some patients to the complete normalization of previously considered irreversible airflow obstruction. This highlights the need to distinguish a "fixed" airflow obstruction due to structural changes unresponsive to current therapies, from a "reversible" one as demonstrated by lung function normalization during biological therapies not previously obtained even with high-dose systemic glucocorticoids. The mechanisms by which exposure to environmental factors initiates the inflammatory responses that trigger airway remodeling are still incompletely understood. Alarmins represent epithelial-derived cytokines that initiate immunologic events leading to inflammatory airway remodeling. Biological therapies can improve airflow obstruction by addressing these airway inflammatory changes. In addition, biologics might prevent and possibly even revert "fixed" remodeling due to structural changes. Hence, it appears clinically important to separate the therapeutic effects (early and late) of biologics as a new paradigm to evaluate the effects of these drugs and future treatments on airway remodeling in severe asthma.
Project description:Asthma is a major global health issue. Over 300 million people worldwide suffer from this chronic inflammatory airway disease. Typical clinical symptoms of asthma are characterized by a recurrent wheezy cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. The main goals of asthma management are to alleviate asthma symptoms, reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, and minimize long-term medicinal adverse effects. However, currently available type 2 T helper cells (Th2)-directed treatments are often ineffective due to the heterogeneity of the asthma subgroups, which manifests clinically with variable and poor treatment responses. Personalized precision therapy of asthma according to individualized clinical characteristics (phenotype) and laboratory biomarkers (endotype) is the future prospect. This mini review discusses the molecular mechanisms underlying asthma pathogenesis, including the hot sought-after topic of microbiota, add-on therapies and the potential application of probiotics in the management of asthma.