Real-World Data on Tezepelumab in Patients With Severe Asthma in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Tezepelumab is a novel biologic blocking thymic stromal lymphopoetin, approved for severe asthma irrespective of biomarker levels or phenotype. OBJECTIVE: To characterize a real-world tezepelumab patient cohort and the efficacy among various asthma phenotypes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study on patients with severe asthma initiating tezepelumab. Clinical response was evaluated at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: We included 129 patients with an average age of 52.5 ± 13.1 years, 59.7% were female. The majority (86.0%) had increased type 2 (T2) biomarkers, 68.2% an allergic and 31.8% an eosinophilic phenotype. 23.3% of patients were biologic-naive. 22 (18.2%) patients discontinued tezepelumab therapy owing to suspected side effects or insufficient efficacy. At 6 months' follow-up, median reduction in annualized exacerbation rate was-1 [25th percentile; 75% percentile {-2.9; 0.0}], the reduction of oral corticosteroid dose among patients with long-term oral corticosteroid therapy was -5 mg [-10; 0] and the Asthma Control Test (ACT) improved by 2 [0; 5] points. A treatment response according to Biologic Asthma Response Score of 80.8% was demonstrated. There were no significant differences in treatment response between T2-high versus T2-low, early- versus adult-onset and eosinophilic versus non-eosinophilic asthma. Prior treatment with other biologics was associated with inferior treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-life cohort, including a large proportion of patients with history of previous biologic use and encompassing various subgroups, the majority responded to tezepelumab. Our data further suggest a steroid-sparing effect of tezepelumab.

As-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol therapy in patients with severe asthma included in the German Asthma Net cohort.

After the GINA update in 2019, the proportion of SMART therapy increased with evidence for better disease control in SMART patients compared to SABA alone https://bit.ly/3SSPX1C.

Long-term multicenter comparison shows equivalent efficacy of monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma therapy.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (biologics) drastically changed severe asthma therapy. Mepolizumab (anti-interleukin (IL) 5), benralizumab (anti-IL5 receptor alpha), and dupilumab (anti-IL4/13) are the most used biologics in this context. While all biologics are efficient individually, the choice of biologic is complicated by insufficient data on their comparative long-term treatment efficacy. Here, we compare the real-life efficacy of these biologics in asthma therapy over 12 months. METHODS: 280 severe asthma patients treated with mepolizumab (129/280, 46%), benralizumab (83/280, 30%) or dupilumab (68/280, 24%) for one year were analyzed retrospectively. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. Endpoints were changes pulmonary function (PF), exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and dose, asthma control test (ACT) score and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels as well as responder status measured by the recently published "Biologic Asthma Response Score" (BARS). RESULTS: All biologics led to significant improvements in PF, ACT and OCS dose. Only Mepolizumab and Benralizumab significantly decreased the exacerbation rate, while only Mepolizumab and Dupilumab significantly decreased FeNO. Responder rates measured by BARS were high across all groups: roughly half of all patients achieved full response and most of the remainder achieved at least partial responder status. Overall, outcomes were similar between groups after both 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: All biologics showed great efficacy in individual parameters and high responder rates measured by BARS without a clinically relevant advantage for any antibody. Response was usually achieved after 6 months and retained at 12 months, emphasizing the utility of early response assessment.

["Crack lung" - atypical bilateral pneumonia]. / "Crack lung" ­ atypische bilaterale Pneumonie.

Inhalation of crack and freebase results in alveolar hemorrhage. In severe courses of the disease, progressive respiratory insufficiency may lead to respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Computed tomography of the thorax reveals bilateral consolidation and ground-glass pattern leaving a subpleural gap. This case report of a 48-year-old male patient highlights the importance of a thorough medical history while ruling out infectious causes.

Comparison of Free-Breathing 3D Phase-Resolved Functional Lung (PREFUL) MRI With Dynamic 19 F Ventilation MRI in Patients With Obstructive Lung Disease and Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Non-contrast-enhanced 1 H magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with full lung coverage shows promise for assessment of regional lung ventilation but a comparison with direct ventilation measurement using 19 F MRI is lacking. PURPOSE: To compare ventilation parameters calculated using 3D phase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI with 19 F MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Fifteen patients with asthma, 14 patients with chronic obstructive lung disease, and 13 healthy volunteers. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3D gradient-echo pulse sequence with golden-angle increment and stack-of-stars encoding at 1.5 T. ASSESSMENT: All participants underwent 3D PREFUL MRI and 19 F MRI. For 3D PREFUL, static regional ventilation (RVent) and dynamic flow-volume cross-correlation metric (FVL-CM) were calculated. For both parameters, ventilation defect percentage (VDP) values and ventilation defect (VD) maps (including a combination of both parameters [VDPCombined ]) were determined. For 19 F MRI, images from eight consecutive breaths under volume-controlled inhalation of perfluoropropane were acquired. Time-to-fill (TTF) and wash-in (WI) parameters were extracted. For all 19 F parameters, a VD map was generated and the corresponding VDP values were calculated. STATISTICAL TESTS: For all parameters, the relationship between the two techniques was assessed using a Spearman correlation (r). Differences between VDP values were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. For regional comparison of VD maps, spatial overlap and Sørensen-Dice coefficients were computed. RESULTS: 3D PREFUL VDP values were significantly correlated to VDP measures by 19 F (r range: 0.59-0.70). For VDPRVent , no significant bias was observed with VDP of the third and fourth breath (bias range = -6.8:7.7%, P range = 0.25:0.30). For VDPFVL-CM , no significant bias was found with VDP values of fourth-eighth breaths (bias range = -2.0:12.5%, P range = 0.12:0.75). The overall spatial overlap of all VD maps increased with each breath, ranging from 61% to 81%, stabilizing at the fourth breath. DATA CONCLUSION: 3D PREFUL MRI parameters showed moderate to strong correlation with 19 F MRI. Depending on the 3D PREFUL VD map, the best regional agreement was found to 19 F VD maps of third-fifth breath. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Adverse Effects Under Th2 Biologics (Dupilumab and Tezepelumab) in a Patient with Severe Asthma and Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: This is the first report of a patient with severe asthma and atopic dermatitis that developed local perioral skin infection which onset coincided with the patient's treatment with dupilumab (candida albicans) and later with tezepelumab (microscopic detection of yeast). CASE PRESENTATION: Besides moderate headache, macular exanthema was found after administration of tezepelumab, which was subsequently accompanied by a worsening of symptoms upon reexposure to the treatment. Both sensations needed multidisciplinary treatment and both antibody therapies were stopped.

Initiation, response assessment, and switch of antibody therapies in patients with severe asthma - A survey among German specialists.

Background: For therapy of severe asthma 5 monoclonal antibodies have been available in Germany up to November 2022, but no clear rules exist on choice of initial therapy, assessment of response, and switch. Objective: To assess current practice on all aspects of biologic therapy by specialists in Germany. Methods: A questionnaire was created by specialists for severe asthma, which was tested and modified by further experts. We invited 119 pulmonologists of the German Asthma Net (GAN) to complete the survey and used SoSci Survey and SPSS for data collection and analysis. Results: Forty-seven pulmonologists took part in the survey with a median annual number of patients treated with biologics of 35, 55% worked in an outpatient practice, and 40% in a hospital. Exacerbations and oral steroid use were the most important factors for the decision to start a biologic therapy. Accordingly, these parameters were also the most relevant for assessment of response. Most participants considered type-2 inflammation biomarkers and comorbidities (foremost CRSwNP and AD) for choosing initial biologic. Asthma Control Test (ACT) was the most common instrument for assessing status of disease control. There was no consensus on thresholds for response of pulmonary function tests including FEV1, FVC, and RV. Eighty-five percent of participants distinguished between "responders", "partial responders" and "non-responders". Comorbidities played an important role for the decision to switch to another biologic, eg, when initial therapy had insufficient effectiveness on CRSwNP. Conclusion: This study provides a detailed insight into current opinions and practice of biologic use in severe asthma in Germany.

Criteria for evaluation of response to biologics in severe asthma - the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (biologics) has revolutionized the therapy of severe asthma. Even though there is a response in the majority of patients, the degree of response varies. To date criteria for assessment of response to biologics are not consistently defined. AIM: To define criteria for evaluation of response to biologics that are precise, simple and suitable for daily use in order to guide decision-making regarding continuation, switching or stopping of biological therapy. METHODS: 8 physicians with large experience in this indication, supported by a data-scientist, developed a consensus on criteria to evaluate response to biologics in patients with severe asthma. RESULT: We developed a combined score based on current literature, own experience and practicability. It uses the main criteria exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and asthma control (asthma control test, ACT). We defined thresholds for "good response", "response" and "insufficient response" rated with a score of "2", "1" and "0" respectively: annual exacerbations ("0 or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reductio < 50 %"), daily OCS dose ("stopping or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reduction < 50 %"), asthma control ("ACT increase ≥ 6 or ≥ 3 with result ≥ 20", "ACT increase 3-5 with result < 20", "ACT increase < 3"). Additional individual criteria like lung function and comorbidities may be important for evaluation of response. We propose 3, 6 and 12 months timepoint for assessment of tolerability and response. Using the combined score, we developed a scheme to guide the decision whether switching the biologic should be considered. CONCLUSION: The Biologic Asthma Response Score (BARS) serves as objective and simple tool to evaluate response to biologic therapy using the three main criteria exacerbations, OCS use and asthma control. A validation of the score was initiated.

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort. METHODS: We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy. RESULTS: Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

Influence of anti-interleukin (IL)-5/anti-IL-5 receptor-α treatment on work productivity in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

This retrospective study shows that treatment with anti-eosinophilic antibodies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma is associated with an increase in work productivity and a decrease in missed days at work https://bit.ly/3IIPppR.

Relationship Between the Response to Antibody Therapy and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Disorders in Patients with Severe Asthma.

Purpose: Asthma is associated with a high prevalence of psychopathological disorders, especially depressive disorders or anxiety. In patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, monoclonal antibody (mAb)-therapy positively influenced control of mental disorders. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of antibody therapy on the burden of these mental diseases depending on responder status. Patients and Methods: Data were collected retrospectively in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma (n = 82) prior to mAb-therapy ("baseline") (omalizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab or mepolizumab). Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) were detected at baseline using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), as well as general sociodemographic data and lung function parameters. At 6-month (±3 month) follow-up, the burden of psychopathological symptoms under mAb-therapy was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-2 (GAD-2). Response status was classified using the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS), assessing exacerbations, oral corticosteroid usage and asthma control test (ACT) score. Predictors for non-response to mAb-therapy were identified using linear regression analysis. Results: Patients with severe asthma suffered from symptoms of MDD/GAD more often compared to the general population, with a higher prevalence among mAb therapy non-responders. mAb-responders exhibited a declining burden of MDD, better quality of life (QoL), less exacerbations, better lung function and better disease control compared to non-responders. A history of symptoms of depression was identified as a predictor for non-response to mAb-therapy. Conclusion: Asthma symptoms and psychological problems are linked and more prevalent in our cohort of severe asthma patients than in the general population. Patients with signs of MDD/GAD before mAb-therapy show less mAb therapy response suggesting a negative impact of prior psychological problems on treatment response. In some patients, the score on MDD/GAD was caused by severe asthma - here symptoms decreased after effective treatment.

The impact of anti-eosinophilic therapy on exercise capacity and inspiratory muscle strength in patients with severe asthma.

Introduction: Exercise limitation is frequently described among asthmatic patients and could be related to different mechanisms of the pulmonary, cardiovascular and muscular systems. Despite this, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) does not have an established role in the management of severe asthma. The aim of our study was to investigate the role of CPET and inspiratory pressure measurement in exercise capacity and muscle strength in severe asthmatic patients treated with anti-IL-5 therapy. Methods: A monocentric observational study was conducted at Hanover Medical School, Germany, from April 2018 to June 2019. Patients affected by severe asthma treated with either mepolizumab or benralizumab were included. All patients underwent CPET before the initiation of antibody therapy and after 3 months, and follow-up visits were scheduled at 3, 6 and 12 months with plethysmography, inspiratory pressure measurement and blood gas analysis. Results: 14 patients were enrolled: 10 (71.4%) females, median age 52 years (IQR 47-61). Seven patients were treated with benralizumab, seven with mepolizumab. Oxygen uptake (V'O2 peak) did not change significantly after 3 months of antibody treatment, while the mean value of the breathing reserve exhaustion reduced significantly from 78% to 60% (p=0.004). Whereas at baseline seven patients depleted the breathing reserve and two of them experienced oxygen desaturation during exercise, at 3 months no one presented any desaturation or breathing reserve exhaustion. The inspiratory pressure remained unchanged before and after the antibody therapy. Conclusion: CPET could show hints of alveolar recruitment and ventilatory efficiency in severe asthma patients treated with antibody therapy.

[Criteria for evaluation of response to biologics in severe asthma - the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS)]. / Kriterien zur Evaluation des Ansprechens auf Biologika bei schwerem Asthma ­ der Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (biologics) has revolutionized the therapy of severe asthma. Even though there is a response in the majority of patients, the degree of response varies. To date criteria for assessment of response to biologics are not consistently defined. AIM: To define criteria for evaluation of response to biologics that are precise, simple and suitable for daily use in order to guide decision-making regarding continuation, switching or stopping of biological therapy. METHODS: 8 physicians with large experience in this indication, supported by a data-scientist, developed a consensus on criteria to evaluate response to biologics in patients with severe asthma. RESULT: We developed a combined score based on current literature, own experience and practicability. It uses the main criteria exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and asthma control (asthma control test, ACT). We defined thresholds for "good response", "response" and "insufficient response" rated with a score of "2", "1" and "0" respectively: annual exacerbations ("0 or reduction ≥ 75 %", reduction 50-74 %", "reductio  < 50 %"), daily OCS dose ("stopping or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reduction < 50 %"), asthma control (ACT increase ≥ 6 or ≥ 3 with result ≥ 20", "ACT increase 3-5 with result < 20", "ACT increase < 3"). Additional individual criteria like lung function and comorbidities may be important for evaluation of response. We propose 3, 6 and 12 months timepoint for assessment of tolerability and response. Using the combined score, we developed a scheme to guide the decision whether switching the biologic should be considered. CONCLUSION: The Biologic Asthma Response Score (BARS) serves as objective and simple tool to evaluate response to biologic therapy using the three main criteria exacerbations, OCS use and asthma control. A validation of the score was initiated.

Impact of short-term pausing of oral corticosteroids on blood eosinophil count in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: The peripheral blood eosinophil count (BEC) is a well-established and easily accessible biomarker for asthma patients and crucial for the therapeutic decision regarding monoclonal antibody (mAB) therapy. Oral corticosteroid therapy frequently hinders the correct evaluation of BEC in patients with severe asthma, but a discontinuation of such therapy frequently comes along with severe side effects. Therefore, we examined the effect of a short 24-hour pause of OCS treatment on BEC in patients with severe asthma and followed-up whether patients with a then increased eosinophil count benefited from mAB-therapy, as expected. METHODS: In this multicentre study we retrospectively included 24 patients with severe asthma and OCS therapy and determined their BEC count. Ten patients, where BEC count was obtained in the morning before taking medication (a de-facto 24-hour OCS pause), were assigned to group 1. Fourteen patients, where BEC was obtained after OCS tapering were assigned to group 2. Those who then received mAB treatment were followed up for treatment response (OCS dose, annual acute exacerbations, increase in forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] and asthma control test [ACT]) after ≥3 months. RESULTS: We included 24 patients with a median age of 60.5 [IQR: 17.3] years. Regarding all baseline characteristics except FEV1 (l), both groups did not differ significantly.Among all 24 patients, after pausing OCS therapy for 2 [5.5] days the BEC increased significantly from 125.0/µl [125] to 300/µl [232.5] (p<0.001). In both individual groups BEC increased significantly as well (150 [123] to 325 [305], p=0.005 and 70 [150] to 280 [255], p<0.001), with no significant difference for increase (BEC +170/µl [205.0] vs. +195 [222.5], p=0.886). Of all 24 patients, 13 (54.2%) reached eosinophil levels ≥300/µl, while 12 of them had not exceeded this threshold before.Subsequently, 20 patients (83.3%) received mAB-therapy with 55.5% demonstrating a good treatment response within 6 [1.5] months. The response rate in patients with BEC count ≥300/µl was even higher (75.0%). There was no difference in the treatment response rate between group 1 and 2 (p=0.092). CONCLUSION: After just a short 24-hour pause of OCS therapy it was possible to demask a relevant eosinophilia in asthma patients, without risking severe side effects. In this manner, we enabled the possibility of achieving successful targeted mAB-therapy, according to the patient's individual asthma phenotype.

Treatment with interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5 receptor antibodies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and COPD.

Background: Anti-eosinophilic therapy with interleukin-5/interleukin-5-receptor antibodies represents an established treatment for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) but did not show clinical efficacy in patients with COPD. The objective of the present study was to evaluate treatment response to anti-eosinophilic antibody therapy in patients with asthma and COPD. Methods: A retrospective comparison of pulmonary function testing, oral corticosteroid intake, quality of life and pulmonary symptom control in patients with SEA and COPD and 1:1 propensity score matched patients suffering from SEA alone was performed. All patients received treatment with either mepolizumab or benralizumab. Data were assessed prior to antibody treatment start and after 6 months of therapy. Results: Data from 84 patients (42 patients with SEA and COPD and 42 patients with SEA) were analysed. After 6 months of treatment, patients in both groups showed improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (improvement by 11% (IQR 5-18) in the SEA and COPD group versus 15% (IQR -3-23); p=0.637) and decreased oral corticosteroid dosages (median reduction by 3 mg in the SEA and COPD group versus 5 mg; p=0.070), without significant differences between groups. Pulmonary symptom control and quality of life improved in both groups. A significant decrease in eosinophils could be measured in both groups with similar cell numbers prior to treatment initiation (600 cells·µL-1 in the SEA and COPD group versus 500 cells·µL-1). Conclusion: Anti-eosinophilic therapy with interleukin-5/interleukin-5-receptor antibodies shows clinical efficacy in patients with SEA and COPD comparable to treatment response in patients with SEA alone.

Eosinophilic cationic protein as marker for response to antibody therapy in severe asthma.

This study of the eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) as predictor of clinical response to biological therapy in severe asthma found that ECP is not useful in unselected patients but may have a role in those not exposed to oral corticosteroids. https://bit.ly/398RwEk.

Overall Response to Anti-IL-5/Anti-IL5-Rα Treatment in Severe Asthma Does Not Depend on Initial Bronchodilator Responsiveness.

BACKGROUND: Positive bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) (change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ΔFEV1] ≥ +200 mL and ≥ +12%) after inhalation of a short-acting beta-2 agonist has been an inclusion criterion in licensing trials of anti-interleukin 5/anti-interleukin 5 receptor alpha (anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα) biologics in severe asthma. However, in clinical practice, patients with severe uncontrolled asthma frequently show a negative BDR. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the response to anti-IL5/anti-IL5Rα therapies differs between patients with positive and negative BDR at baseline. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter analysis of treatment outcomes in patients with severe asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα stratified for baseline BDR. RESULTS: Of 133 patients included, 37 had a positive and 96 had a negative BDR at baseline. Following anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα treatment, FEV1 improved significantly in both groups compared with baseline (P < .0001), with no significant difference between patients with positive and negative BDR (ΔFEV1 +493 mL vs +306 mL; P = .06). Forced vital capacity (FVC) increased (ΔFVC: +85 mL vs +650 mL; P < .01) and residual volume (RV) decreased (ΔRV +113 mL vs -307 mL; P < .01) significantly in patients with negative BDR. Median annualized exacerbations (0 vs 0; P = .7), reduction of exacerbation rate (Δexacerbations 0 vs -2; P = .07), continuous oral corticosteroids (OCS) use (Δpatients on OCS -35% vs -39%; P = .99) and improvement of Asthma Control Test (ACT) score (ΔACT 6 vs 5; P = .7) were similar in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant correlations of positive versus negative BDR with response parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Both groups improved following treatment with similar responses concerning reduction of OCS therapy, exacerbations, and improvement of symptom control. Pulmonary function also improved in both groups during anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα treatment, with differences in response patterns noted.