Real-World Studies of Biologics for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Asthma.

Presently, there are 6 biologic agents available for treatment of asthma. Each of these agents has undergone robust clinical trials in their approval programs. Such studies rely upon very rigid entry criteria that may not translate to real-world efficacy. Thus, exploring the efficacy of these agents in a larger, more heterogeneous, population brings a sense of comfort regarding their efficacy in the real-world. This review explores the available literature regarding the use of biologics in the real world, with a focus on markers of likely response to therapy.

Disproportionality analysis of reslizumab based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

Background: With the increasing prescription of reslizumab for severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype, a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis of reslizumab is urgently required to detect potential unreported adverse events (AEs) in clinical practice. Objectives: We aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of reslizumab-related AEs in the real world. Design: Disproportionality analysis based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Methods: Reslizumab-related AEs between the second quarter of 2016 and the fourth quarter of 2022 from the FAERS database were obtained. A disproportionality analysis was performed to evaluate the safety profile of reslizumab using the reporting odds ratio. Results: A total of 10,450,353 reports were collected from the FAERS database. Of the 403 reslizumab-related AEs, 42 distinct AEs were identified with positive signals. The most common AEs including dyspnea and oropharyngeal pain were identified, consistent with the instruction and clinical studies. Unexpected AEs of disproportionality such as bronchospasm and chest pain were also observed. Drug ineffective was identified as a noteworthy concern that accounted for 13.90% (56/403) of the overall reslizumab-related reports. Conclusion: While reslizumab offered a promising treatment option for severe eosinophilic asthma, more attention should be paid to the common AEs and new unexpected AEs. Based on the current findings of signal detection, further prospective studies are needed for the next signal validation and confirmation.

Background: Reslizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2016 for the add-on maintenance treatment of eosinophilic severe asthma. A safety profile identifies common and new unexpected adverse events (AEs) based on the data from clinical studies and post-marketing surveillance to guide informed decisions. So far, the safety profile of reslizumab has been unclear. Methods: In this study, we aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of reslizumab-related AEs in the real world based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. We analyzed the collected data using the reporting odds ratio (ROR). Results: Our study identified the most common AEs such as dyspnea and oropharyngeal pain, which were consistent with the instruction and clinical studies. We also observed unexpected AEs of disproportionality including bronchospasm and chest pain. Moreover, we identified drug ineffective as a noteworthy concern that should be addressed in future research. Conclusion: We identified new unexpected AEs in addition to the common AEs indicated in the instructions. We also emphasized the importance of correct administration protocols for reslizumab. Based on the current findings of signal detection, further prospective studies are needed for the next signal validation and confirmation.

A pharmacovigilance analysis of reslizumab.

Targeting the IL-5 pathway in eosinophilic asthma: A comparison of anti-IL-5 versus anti-IL-5 receptor agents.

Eosinophilic asthma is characterized by frequent exacerbations, poor symptom control and accelerated lung function decline. It is now recognized that the immune response underlying eosinophilic asthma involves a complex network of interconnected pathways from both the adaptive and innate immune systems. Within this response, interleukin-5 (IL-5) plays a central role in eosinophil differentiation, activation and survival and has emerged as a key target for therapies treating severe asthma. The monoclonal antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab target the ligand IL-5, preventing its interaction with eosinophils; in contrast, benralizumab binds to the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), preventing IL-5 from binding and leading to substantially greater eosinophil reduction by enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Although no direct head-to-head clinical trials of asthma have been published to formally evaluate the clinical significance of these different therapeutic approaches, the potential benefits of partial versus complete eosinophil depletion continue to remain an important area of study and debate. Here, we review the existing real-world and clinical study data of anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5R therapies in severe eosinophilic asthma.

Biologics in Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis.

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) are complex disorders defined by blood and tissue eosinophilia and heterogeneous clinical manifestations. Historically, the mainstay of therapy for both conditions has been systemic glucocorticoids. However, recent availability of biologics that directly or indirectly target eosinophils has provided new avenues to pursue improved outcomes with decreased toxicity. In this article, we summarize the evidence supporting the use of specific biologics in HES and/or EGPA and provide a framework for their clinical use in patients.

A comparison of the impact of anti-IL5/5r therapies in allergic versus non-allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in a real-life setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of allergic patients (AP) and non-allergic patients (NAP) with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) treated with anti-IL5/IL5R biologic agents (mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab) over one year. Sub-analyses assessed treatment response variations between AP and NAP based on the biological used and compared outcomes among AP with and without fungal allergy. METHODS: Observational retrospective analysis. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, pulmonary function tests, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, oral corticosteroid (OCS) usage, and exacerbation frequency were assessed at the initiation of biological treatment and after one year. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients with SEA were included, 41 AP and 24 NAP. 55.4% were treated with mepolizumab, 33.8% with benralizumab, and 10.8% with reslizumab. Before anti-IL5/5R treatment, AP had worse baseline outcomes but there were no differences in pulmonary function. Mean annual exacerbation rate and percentage of patients requiring OCS and dose of prednisone were higher in AP than NAP. AP had significantly higher total IgE values. After one year of treatment, more AP discontinued OCS than NAP (p = 0.025). Both experienced a significant reduction in exacerbation frequency (p = 0.001) and improved respiratory function. 70.7% of AP and 60% of NAP improved ACT ≥3 points. There was no significant difference between AP and NAP using mepolizumab (p = 0.145) or benralizumab (p = 0.174) in reducing OCS. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-IL5/IL5R reduced the need for OCS and improved asthma control, regardless of allergic status. Fungal allergy led to lower ACT scores and higher exacerbations than other allergens; both groups improved with anti-IL5/ILR.

Temporal variation in the effectiveness of biologics in asthma: Effect modification by changing patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The underlying population of patients selected for each respiratory monoclonal antibody might change as other biologics are approved. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effect modification by calendar time of the effectiveness of each respiratory biologics in asthma. METHODS: The Effectiveness of Respiratory biologics in Asthma (ERA) is a retrospective cohort of severe asthma patients from the Mass General Brigham clinics between January 2013 and September 2023. Periods were pre-specified as the anti-IgE (2013-2015), anti-IL5 (2016-2018), anti-IL4/13 (2019-2021) or anti-alarmin (2022-2023) era. We evaluated each biologic's effect on asthma-related exacerbations comparing the one-year period before and after therapy initiation using Poisson regression and Cox regression for time-to-first exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 647 biologic-naïve patients, 165 initiated omalizumab, 235 anti-IL5, 227 dupilumab, and 20 tezepelumab. Omalizumab's effectiveness improved as more biologics were approved: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.16 [0.94-1.43] anti-IgE era vs. 0.54 [0.37-0.80] anti-IL4/13-alarmin era. Omalizumab patients in the anti-IL4/13-alarmin era had lower blood eosinophil counts and less chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). For anti-IL5s, effectiveness peaked in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.52 [0.42-0.64]) when patients had higher BMI and less concomitant CRSwNP. Dupilumab was most effective in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.60 [0.50-0.72]). There were fewer current smokers in dupilumab patients in the anti-IL4/13 era. Results were similar in time-to-event analyses and in sensitivity analyses accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: There are temporal variations in the effectiveness of biologics partly explained by the shift in the underlying population, particularly for omalizumab. Though having more choices was associated with better patient selection for omalizumab, this was inconsistent for other biologics.

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in allergy: Targeting IgE, cytokine, and alarmin pathways.

The etiology of allergy is closely linked to type 2 inflammatory responses ultimately leading to the production of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), a key driver of many allergic conditions. At a high level, initial allergen exposure disrupts epithelial integrity, triggering local inflammation via alarmins including IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP, which activate type 2 innate lymphoid cells as well as other immune cells to secrete type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, promoting Th2 cell development and eosinophil recruitment. Th2 cell dependent B cell activation promotes the production of allergen-specific IgE, which stably binds to basophils and mast cells. Rapid degranulation of these cells upon allergen re-exposure leads to allergic symptoms. Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying allergic pathophysiology have significantly shaped the development of therapeutic intervention strategies. In this review, we highlight key therapeutic targets within the allergic cascade with a particular focus on past, current and future treatment approaches using monoclonal antibodies. Specific targeting of alarmins, type 2 cytokines and IgE has shown varying degrees of clinical benefit in different allergic indications including asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, food allergies and eosinophilic esophagitis. While multiple therapeutic antibodies have been approved for clinical use, scientists are still working on ways to improve on current treatment approaches. Here, we provide context to understand therapeutic targeting strategies and their limitations, discussing both knowledge gaps and promising future directions to enhancing clinical efficacy in allergic disease management.

Insight into IL-5 as a Potential Target for the Treatment of Allergic Diseases.

Interleukin-5 functions as a B-cell differentiation factor, but more importantly, in the context of this review, it plays a variety of roles in eosinophil biology, including eosinophil differentiation and maturation in the bone marrow, and facilitates eosinophil migration to tissue sites, usually in the context of an allergic reaction. Given the availability of selective anti-IL-5 drugs such as mepolizumab and reslizumab, as well as the IL-5 receptor antagonist benralizumab, it is worth investigating whether they could be used in some cases of allergic disease. Asthma has a well-documented involvement of IL-5 in its pathophysiology and has clear benefits in the case of anti-IL-5 therapy; therefore, current knowledge is presented to provide a reference point for the study of less-described diseases such as atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and its association with both IL-5 and anti-IL-5 treatment options. We then review the current literature on these diseases, explain where appropriate potential reasons why anti-IL-5 treatments are ineffective, and then point out possible future directions for further research.

Real-World Effectiveness of Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma: Analysis of the KoSAR.

PURPOSE: Severe asthma is associated with high morbidity and healthcare utilization; however, treatment options for these patients are limited. This study aimed to determine the therapeutic effects of biologics in clinical practice. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 136 patients who received biologics for at least 4 months between September 2017 and July 2022 at 25 medical centers affiliated with the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR). The study evaluated the treatment effects, including acute exacerbation rates, maintenance of oral corticosteroid dosages, lung function, quality of life, blood eosinophil count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, by comparing measurements before and after 4 months of biologic treatment. Responses for each medication was evaluated based on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness score, and any adverse reactions were summarized. RESULTS: With the administration of biologics over the course of 4 months, there was a reduction in asthma acute exacerbations, a significant improvement in lung function, and a significant decrease in daily maintenance dose of oral steroid. Blood eosinophil counts decreased in the mepolizumab and reslizumab groups, while FeNO levels decreased only in the dupilumab group. The Asthma Control Test, Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics, and the EuroQol-visual analogue scale scores showed a significant improvement. Most patients (80.15%) responded to the biologic treatment. Meanwhile, non-responders often had chronic rhinosinusitis as a comorbidity, exhibited lower lung function, and required higher doses of oral steroids. No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Biologics are highly effective in Korean patients with Type 2 severe asthma, significantly reducing acute exacerbation rates and doses of oral corticosteroids, while also improving lung function. Therefore, it seems beneficial to administer biologics without any restrictions to patients exhibiting Type 2 severe asthma.

Single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics capture eosinophil development and identify the role of IL-5 in their lineage transit amplification.

The activities, ontogeny, and mechanisms of lineage expansion of eosinophils are less well resolved than those of other immune cells, despite the use of biological therapies targeting the eosinophilia-promoting cytokine interleukin (IL)-5 or its receptor, IL-5Rα. We combined single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics and generated transgenic IL-5Rα reporter mice to revisit eosinophilopoiesis. We reconciled human and murine eosinophilopoiesis and provided extensive cell-surface immunophenotyping and transcriptomes at different stages along the continuum of eosinophil maturation. We used these resources to show that IL-5 promoted eosinophil-lineage expansion via transit amplification, while its deletion or neutralization did not compromise eosinophil maturation. Informed from our resources, we also showed that interferon response factor-8, considered an essential promoter of myelopoiesis, was not intrinsically required for eosinophilopoiesis. This work hence provides resources, methods, and insights for understanding eosinophil ontogeny, the effects of current precision therapeutics, and the regulation of eosinophil development and numbers in health and disease.

Advancements in biologic therapy in eosinophilic asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma encompasses a spectrum of phenotypes often categorized into two groups- type 2 high (T2 high) and type 2 low (T2 low). T2 high includes atopic and eosinophilic presentations whereas T2 low is non-atopic, non-eosinophilic, and oft associated with neutrophilic inflammation. Eosinophilic asthma is often driven by IgE, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 and TSLP. This can lead to eosinophilic inflammatory response in the airways which in turn can be used as target for treatment. AREAS COVERED: The article will focus on biologic therapy that is currently being used in eosinophilic asthma management in mainly the adult population including clinical trials and co-morbidities that can be treated using the same biologics. A review on asthma biologics for pediatric population has been reviewed elsewhere. EXPERT OPINION: Biological therapy for asthma targeting the IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP pathways are shown to have benefit for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma, as exemplified in real-world studies. When choosing the right biological agent factors such as phenotype, comorbidities, and cost-effectiveness of the biologic agent must be taken into consideration.

Eosinophil granulocytes in chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases and CRSwNP: Function, immunological basis, and clinical significance.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophils play an important regulatory and immunomodulatory role in airway mucosa and have antiparasitic and antiviral properties as well as pro-inflammatory effects that may also cause persistence of inflammation with tissue remodeling. The number of eosinophils and the detection of specific mediators in biological samples from, e.g., blood, nasal secretions, and bronchial fluid can serve as biomarkers that reflect the underlying pathophysiology of certain diseases, predict treatment success, and detect therapy effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted to determine the immunologic basis, mode of action, clinical significance, and available evidence for therapeutic approaches using eosinophil-targeted monoclonal antibodies by searching Medline, Pubmed, and the national and international trial database (ClinicalTrials.gov) and guideline registries as well as the Cochrane Library. Human studies published on the topic in the period up to and including 10/2023 were considered. RESULTS: Based on the international literature and previous experience, the results are summarized, and recommendations are given. CONCLUSION: The important role of eosinophils in immunological processes in the airway mucosa is comprehensively analyzed and can serve as a basis for current and future treatment approaches.

Adverse events of anti-IL-5 drugs in patients with eosinophilic asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence-based assessments.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to clarify comprehensively the safety profiles of anti-IL-5 drugs and pinpoint potential safety concerns that may arise in their post-marketing phase. METHODS: Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022. Additionally, we investigated the FDA AE Reporting System for post-marketing adverse event (AE) reports related to anti-IL-5 drugs. The outcomes fulfilled the proportional reporting rate criteria and the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network. RESULTS: We included 24 published studies in our analysis. The anti-IL-5 treatment group showed an incidence of AEs comparable to the placebo group, and it exhibited a significantly lower frequency of serious AEs. Common AEs were asthma, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and bronchitis. The post-marketing data included 28,478 case reports associated with the suspect drugs and 75 suspect safety observations affecting 16 system organ classes. New suspect observations included incomplete therapeutic product effect, URTIs, and pulmonary mass in reports related to mepolizumab. Reports associated with mepolizumab and benralizumab also indicated issues with incorrect technique in device usage and product issues. CONCLUSIONS: Individual anti-IL-5 drugs' safety profiles largely matched their product inserts. We identified issues like improper device usage, product issue, and URTIs as potential concerns for mepolizumab and benralizumab. Additionally, all anti-IL-5 drugs showed signs of incomplete therapeutic effects.

The New Therapeutic Frontiers in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Biological Drugs.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a multifaceted disease characterized by a wide heterogeneity of clinical manifestations, endoscopic and histopathologic patterns, and responsiveness to therapy. From the perspective of an effective approach to the patient, the different inflammatory mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of EoE and biologics, in particular monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), targeting these pathways are needed. Currently, the most relevant is dupilumab, which interferes with both interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 pathways by binding IL-4 receptor α, and is the only mAb approved by the European Medicine Agency and US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of EoE. Other mAbs investigated include mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab (interfering with IL-5 axis), cendakimab and dectrekumab (anti-IL-13s), tezepelumab (anti-TSLP), lirentelimab (anti-SIGLEG-8), and many others. Despite the undeniable economic impact of biologic therapies, in the near future, there will be room for further reflection about the opportunity to prescribe biologic agents, not only as a last-line therapy in selected cases such as patients with comorbidities involving common pathways. Although recent findings are very encouraging, the road to permanent success in the treatment of EoE is still long, and further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of mAbs and to discover new potential targets.

Comparative Impact of Asthma Biologics: A Nationwide US Claim-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic modifiers targeting type 2 (T2) airway inflammation are effective in reducing asthma exacerbation. However, real-world and comparative effectiveness studies remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare the real-world impact of anti-T2 asthma biologics. METHODS: In this retrospective, new user cohort study, we used the MarketScan, a Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, to identify adult patients with asthma who began to receive an anti-T2 biologic agent (anti-IL-5s, dupilumab, or omalizumab). We examined the influence of the biologic class on asthma exacerbation by comparing the average number of asthma exacerbation 1 year before and after biologic initiation. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to compare the effectiveness of these asthma biologics on reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations within 18 months of the initial administration of biologics while controlling for demographic variables, comorbidities, and asthma severity. RESULTS: We identified 5,538 asthma patients who were new to taking an anti-T2 biologic [mean age [±SD], 45.6 (12.78) years; 65.8% female). Asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation by 11% to 47%, particularly among patients with two or more asthma exacerbations in the year preceding biologic initiation (31% to 65% reduction). Biologics were especially effective in reducing asthma-related hospitalizations (44.6% to 60%). After adjusting for baseline demographics, asthma medication, and comorbidities, dupilumab was associated with a lower estimated mean number of asthma exacerbation per year and lower adjusted odds ratio for developing an asthma exacerbation relative to other biologics (50% to 80% less likely). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-T2 asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation in real-word settings. Evidence supports growing literature reporting that dupilumab might have a more favorable impact on asthma exacerbation relative to other asthma biologics.

Comparison of clinical remission criteria for severe asthma patients receiving biologic therapy.

BACKGROUND: The concept of remission on biological treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic target for patients with severe asthma, composed of 1. no chronic use of systemic steroids, 2. no exacerbations, 3. minimal symptoms, and 4. optimized lung function, for a significant time. However, the criteria for remission are not clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare different criteria for remission in subjects receiving biologicals for severe asthma. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of adult subjects who receive a stable regimen of a biological for severe asthma for at least 6-months. We compared the proportion of subjects who fulfilled different specific criteria in the four domains, as well as those who achieved different composite outcome measures of clinical remission. RESULTS: Of 39 subjects, 28 were females (71.8%), mean age 60.4. Twelve were current or past smokers (30.8%). Twelve had prior different biological treatment (30.8%), and 3/39 had more than one previous treatment (7.7%). Current biological included mepolizumab 12/39 (30.8%), dupilumab 11/39 (28.2%), benralizumab 10/39 (25.6%), omalizumab 5/39 (12.8%), reslizumab 1/39 (2.6%). Different specific criteria were achieved in 39-80% of subjects, being highest for no chronic steroid use and lowest for symptoms control and lung function. Overall remission was obtained by 20-41%, depending on definition, with significant variability in agreement between different sets of remission criteria (Cohen's kappa 0.33-0.89). CONCLUSION: Clinical remission is achievable in real-world severe asthmatics on biological therapies. The core criteria for remission should be better defined.

Anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5R biologics for severe asthma. Are there any differences in their effects?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective multicentre study is to describe the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα therapies and to compare their effectiveness. METHODS: We collected and analysed results separately for anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα therapies from January 2016 until December 2021 in multidisciplinary severe asthma units. We collected demographic and clinical data, treatment with previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents, and comorbidities. We compared the number of exacerbations and admissions to the hospital, daily oral corticosteroid intake, pulmonary function tests, and Asthma Control Test scores before and after 12 months of therapy. 261 patients were included: 176 patients in the anti-IL-5 group and 85 in the anti-IL-5Rα group. RESULTS: Both groups led to statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbations, hospital admissions, and visits to the Emergency Room. Although both groups showed a significant reduction in blood eosinophiliccount, we found a difference, although not significant, in the magnitude of reduction as benralizumab was able to decrease eosinophil counts to zero. Patients in the anti-IL-5 group achieved higher ACT scores after treatment, although this improvement was seen in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα biologics have shown similar effectiveness despite having different mechanisms of action. The anti-IL-5 group appeared to be better than benralizumab at improving ACT scores and FEV1/FVC and at reducing the number of inhalers. Although these differences were not statistically significant, it is not clear whether they may have clinical relevance and they might highlight the need for further head-to-head studies comparing these treatments.

Exploring the risk of infection events in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies: A rapid systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Introduction: Benralizumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab are novel monoclonal antibodies approved for asthma, targeting eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab is directed against IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), while mepolizumab and reslizumab are directed against IL-5. The three drugs cause a reduction in eosinophils, but benralizumab also causes a cytotoxic effect on eosinophils and basophils. Recently, it has been reported that suboptimal responders to benralizumab presented exacerbations associated with concomitant infections and sputum neutrophilia and the incidence of infections was greater in patients receiving benralizumab compared to mepolizumab and reslizumab. For this reason, we wanted to explore potential differences in terms of infectious adverse events between the three different anti-IL-5 antibodies. Methods: We performed a rapid systematic review on PubMed up to April 28, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating benralizumab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab in patients with asthma. Included outcomes were the reporting of any respiratory tract infection and any emergency department (ED) or hospital admission for infection or asthma exacerbation. A Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis was performed with Cochrane RevMan 5.4 to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). A subgroup analysis for the different active treatments was performed. Results: From 163 references we included 21 studies reporting the results of 23 different RCTs for a total population of 9156 patients. All studies compared anti-IL-5 antibodies against placebo. Anti-IL-5 treatment resulted in non-significant differences compared to placebo in the odds for nasopharyngitis (OR = 0.90; 95 % CI from 0.76 to 1.07), pharyngitis (OR = 1.45; 95 % CI from 0.92 to 2.28), upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (OR = 0.97; 95 % CI from 0.82 to 1.15), rhinitis (OR = 1.01; 95 % CI from 0.71 to 1.44), pneumonia (OR = 0.56; 95 % CI from 0.10 to 2.01), and influenza (OR = 0.84; 95 % CI from 0.65 to 1.09). We observed significant reductions in the reporting of sinusitis (OR = 0.75; 95 % CI from 0.53 to 1.06), bronchitis (OR = 0.71; 95 % CI from 0.59 to 0.86), and ED or hospital admission due to asthma exacerbation for overall anti-IL-5 antibodies compared to placebo (OR = 0.59; 95 % CI from 0.40 to 0.88). We were not able to discriminate whether exacerbations were associated with infections or to increased sputum eosinophilia. From the subgroup analysis, we observed differences in directions and magnitudes of the effect size in the reporting of some events. Benralizumab was associated with increased odds of pharyngitis (OR = 1.56; 95 % CI from 0.97 to 2.52) and a similar trend was observed for mepolizumab in the reporting of rhinitis (OR = 1.85; 95 % CI from 0.72 to 4.78), both non-statistically significant. In terms of effect size, benralizumab also showed higher odds for bronchitis and pneumonia in comparison to mepolizumab and reslizumab (OR = 0.76, OR = 0.69, and OR = 0.60 for bronchitis and OR = 0.80, OR = 0.20, and OR = 0.45, respectively, all non-significant). Conclusion: Anti-IL-5 treatments might have different effects on the reporting of some infection events in patients with asthma. However, the evidence is limited by sample size and far than conclusive and suggest the need of future studies to evaluate the risk of infections in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 treatments.