Comparison of Long-term Response and Remission to Omalizumab and Anti-IL-5/IL-5R Using Different Criteria in a Real-life Cohort of Severe Asthma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of biologic therapy response is vital to monitor its effectiveness. Authors have proposed various response criteria including good responder, super-responder, non-responder, and clinical remission. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the prevalence of response and clinical remission after long-term treatment (>6 months) of anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics, compare these results with existing criteria, and identify predictors for non-responders and clinical remission. METHODS: A multicenter, real-life study involving severe asthma patients in Spain. Various outcomes were assessed to gauge response and clinical remission against established criteria. RESULTS: The study included 429 patients, 209 (48.7%) omalizumab, 112 (26.1%) mepolizumab, 19 (4.4%) reslizumab and 89 (20.7%) benralizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 55.3±38.8 months. In the final year of treatment, 218 (50.8%) were super-responders, 173 (40.3%) responders, 38 (8.9%) non-responders, and clinical remission in 116 (27%), without differences among biologics. The short-term non-responders (<6 months) were 25/545 (4.6%). Substantial variations in response and clinical remission were observed when applying different published criteria. Predictors of non-response included higher BMI (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23; p<0.001), admissions at ICU (2.69; 1.30-5.56; p=0.01), high count of SAE (1.21; 1.03-1.42; p=0.02) before biologic treatment. High FEV1% (0.96; 0.95-0.98; p<0.001), a high ACT score (0.93; 0.88-0.99; p=0.01) before biologic treatment or NSAID-ERD (0.52; 0.29-0.91; p=0.02) showed strong associations with achieving clinical remission. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of severe asthma patients treated long-term with omalizumab or anti-IL5/IL-5Rα achieved a good response. Differences in response criteria highlight the need for harmonization in defining response and clinical remission in biologic therapy to enable meaningful cross-study comparisons.

Disposition of Work-Related Asthma in a Spanish Asthma Cohort: Comparison of Asthma Severity Between Employed and Retired Workers.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to certain agents in the workplace can trigger occupational asthma or work-exacerbated asthma, both of which come under the heading of work-related asthma (WRA). Understanding the burden that WRA represents can help in the management of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of occupation on asthma in real life and analyze the characteristics of patients with WRA included in an asthma cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study of a cohort of consecutive patients with asthma. A standardized clinical history was completed. Patients were classified as having WRA or non-WRA. All patients underwent respiratory function tests, FeNO test, and methacholine challenge (methacholine concentration that causes a 20% drop in FEV1) at the beginning of the study. They were classified into two groups, depending on their employment status: employed (group 1) or unemployed (group 2). RESULTS: Of the 480 patients included in the cohort, 82 (17%) received the diagnosis of WRA. Fifty-seven patients (70%) were still working. Mean age (SD) was 46 (10.69) years in group 1 and 57 (9.91) years in group 2 (P < .0001). Significant differences were observed in adherence to treatment (64.9% in group 1 vs 88% in group 2; P = .0354) and in severe asthma exacerbations (35.7% in group 1 vs 0% in group 2; P = .0172). No significant differences were observed in the rest of the variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of WRA in specialized asthma units is not negligible. The absence of differences in the severity of asthma, the treatment administered, alterations in lung function, and the number of exacerbations in those working versus not working may support the idea that advice regarding changing jobs should be customized for individual patients.

Safety of biological therapy in elderly patients with severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of biological therapy for severe T2 asthma (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab) under real-life conditions in elderly patients older than 70 years. METHODS: Retrospective data collection including clinical characteristics, comorbidities, treatment, disease control and adverse events (AE) of all patients with severe asthma on biological therapy older than 70 years seen in the Severe Asthma Unit of our hospital. RESULTS: Of 147 patients with severe asthma being treated with biologics, 21 patients older than 70 years were included. The median age of these patients was 76.3 years (range 71-86) and the majority were women (n = 18, 85.7%). There were 9 patients (42.9%) who experienced an AE related to biological treatment. Four (44.4%) were in treatment with omalizumab, two (22.2%) with mepolizumab, two patients (22.2%) with reslizumab and one (11.1%) with benralizumab. The median FEV1 (%) was 66%. These patients had a considerably higher body mass index (BMI). No significant differences were found for any other variable. Most of the AE reported were considered mild with the exception of one case of systemic AE (anaphylaxis) associated with omalizumab. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the prescription of biological therapy in elderly patients with severe asthma seems to be safe. More evidence is needed in this particular population.