Omalizumab for the Treatment of Multiple Food Allergies.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. METHODS: In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. RESULTS: Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).

Updating the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is promising as an efficacious treatment for food allergy. Other food allergy treatments are also under development. However, adverse allergic events during treatment, as well as during oral food challenges, are common and reporting is not standardized. OBJECTIVE: A more nuanced grading scale is needed to create a comprehensive and universal system to categorize adverse events and their severity for food allergy clinical trials. METHODS: Starting with the 2012 Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale and the World Allergy Organization Grading System, we developed the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions, Version 3.0, in collaboration with industry partners with expert opinion. RESULTS: The revised CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions has 5 levels of increasing severity, ranging from generalized urticaria, localized angioedema, rhinitis, and abdominal pain (grade 1) to death (grade 5). Systemic reactions are further categorized within each grade by relevant organ system. Mild, single-system reactions are differentiated from mild, multisystem reactions. Lower respiratory tract symptoms are graded on the basis of response to therapy; those that are refractory to standard treatment (eg, requiring >3 doses of intramuscular epinephrine, continuous intravenous epinephrine infusion, and continuous albuterol nebulization) and respiratory compromise requiring mechanical ventilation are classified as grade 4, life-threatening reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Universal and consistent use of the revised CoFAR Grading Scale beyond the CoFAR centers would allow for better data aggregation and safety comparisons in clinical trials for food allergy.

Plant Polyphenols and Their Potential Benefits on Cardiovascular Health: A Review.

Fruits, vegetables, and other food items contain phytochemicals or secondary metabolites which may be considered non-essential nutrients but have medicinal importance. These dietary phytochemicals exhibit chemopreventive and therapeutic effects against numerous diseases. Polyphenols are secondary metabolites found in vegetables, fruits, and grains. These compounds exhibit several health benefits such as immune modulators, vasodilators, and antioxidants. This review focuses on recent studies on using dietary polyphenols to treat cardiovascular disorders, atherosclerosis, and vascular endothelium deficits. We focus on exploring the safety of highly effective polyphenols to ensure their maximum impact on cardiac abnormalities and discuss recent epidemiological evidence and intervention trials related to these properties. Kaempferol, quercetin, and resveratrol prevent oxidative stress by regulating proteins that induce oxidation in heart tissues. In addition, polyphenols modulate the tone of the endothelium of vessels by releasing nitric oxide (NO) and reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) oxidation to prevent atherosclerosis. In cardiomyocytes, polyphenols suppress the expression of inflammatory markers and inhibit the production of inflammation markers to exert an anti-inflammatory response. Consequently, heart diseases such as strokes, hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease could be prevented by dietary polyphenols.

Patients with allergic asthma have lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than patients with nonallergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although asthma does not appear to be a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), outcomes could vary for patients with different asthma subtypes. The objective of this analysis was to compare COVID-19 outcomes in real-world cohorts in the United States among patients with asthma, with or without evidence of allergy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of the COVID-19 Optum electronic health record dataset (February 20, 2020-January 28, 2021), patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with a history of moderate-to-severe asthma were divided into 2 cohorts: those with evidence of allergic asthma and those without (nonallergic asthma). After 1:1 propensity score matching, in which covariates were balanced and potential bias was removed, COVID-19 outcomes were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: From a COVID-19 population of 591,198 patients, 1595 patients with allergic asthma and 8204 patients with nonallergic asthma were identified. After propensity score matching (n = 1578 per cohort), risk of death from any cause after COVID-19 diagnosis was significantly lower for patients with allergic vs nonallergic asthma (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI 0.28-0.83; P = 0.0087), and a smaller proportion of patients with allergic vs nonallergic asthma was hospitalized within - 7 to + 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis (13.8% [n = 217] vs 18.3% [n = 289]; P = 0.0005). Among hospitalized patients, there were no significant differences between patients with allergic or nonallergic asthma in need for intensive care unit admission, respiratory support, or COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma subtype may influence outcomes after COVID-19; patients with allergic asthma are at lower risk for hospitalization/death than those with nonallergic asthma.

Omalizumab in children with uncontrolled allergic asthma: Review of clinical trial and real-world experience.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood. Allergen sensitization and high frequencies of comorbid allergic diseases are characteristic of severe asthma in children. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE mAb, is the first targeted biologic therapeutic approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma (AA) that remains uncontrolled despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medications. Since its initial licensing for use in adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older, the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of omalizumab have been demonstrated in several published clinical trials in children aged 6 to less than 12 years with moderate-to-severe AA. These studies supported the approval of the pediatric indication (use in children aged ≥6 years) by the European Medicines Agency in 2009 and the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016. After this most recent change in licensing, we review the outcomes from clinical trials in children with persistent AA receiving omalizumab therapy and observational studies from the past 7 years of clinical experience in Europe. Data sources were identified by using PubMed in 2016. Guidelines and management recommendations and materials from the recent US Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting are also reviewed.

The clinical burden of food allergies: Insights from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) Patient Registry.

Background: Food allergies are serious and potentially life-threatening, and often place a large burden on patients and their caregivers, including impacts on quality of life. Objective: To assess the real-world patient burden of food allergies, using self-reported data available from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) Patient Registry (NCT04653324). Methods: The FARE Patient Registry is voluntary and captures real-world experiences of adults and pediatric patients in the United States, and their caregivers, through a series of surveys assessing patient health and experiences with food allergies. Self-reported data were descriptively analyzed. Results: The FARE study cohort included 5587 patients with food allergies; 82% had multiple food allergies and 62% were aged <18 years. About half of the patients were first diagnosed by an allergist/immunologist (53%), most commonly with a skin prick test (71%) or a serum immunoglobulin E test (62%). This analysis found that food allergies (most commonly peanut [66%], tree nuts [61%], egg [43%], and milk [37%]) impart a large clinical burden on patients, many of whom experience food-related allergic reactions and comorbidities. Many patients experienced >1 food-related allergic reaction per year (42%), with 46% experiencing food-induced anaphylaxis. Half of all food-related allergic reactions occurred at home. Accidental exposures to food allergens were experienced by 77% of patients. The most common allergic comorbidities reported by patients with food allergies were atopic dermatitis (48%), asthma (46%), and allergic rhinitis (39%). The clinical burden of food allergies were found to be greater in patients with multiple food allergies, and different for adults versus pediatric patients. Conclusion: This is the first study to assess patient experience and disease burden information from patients contributing to the FARE Patient Registry, thus providing a unique insight into the lives of patients in the United States with food allergies. These insights may assist clinicians and other public health stakeholders in the management of patients with food allergies.

The mental health burden of food allergies: Insights from patients and their caregivers from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) Patient Registry.

Background: Food allergies impose a large psychosocial burden, including mental, emotional, and social aspects, on both patients and their caregivers. Patients, caregivers, and their families often experience anxiety, isolation, and fear around food allergies. Objective: To assess the real-world mental health burden of food allergies, using the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) Patient Registry (NCT04653324). Methods: Self-reported data from patients with food allergies, and their caregivers, were analyzed from the FARE Food Allergy History and Mental Health Concerns surveys. Odds ratios were also calculated as a measure of association between patient food allergy characteristics and the likelihood of having mental health concerns or a formal mental health diagnosis. Results: The FARE Patient Registry included 1680 patients/caregivers. Anxiety (54%) and panic (32%) were the most common emotions that patients reported as a result of eating the food that produced an allergic reaction. About two-thirds of patients reported mental health concerns related to food allergies (62%), including anxiety after an allergic reaction, anxiety about living with food allergies, and concerns about food avoidance. Caregivers also experienced fear for the safety of their children, and often sought mental health care to cope with worry related to caring for patients with food allergies. The likelihood of having food allergy-related mental health concerns was increased for patients experiencing more than 1 reaction per year (OR 1.68-1.90) and was lowered for patients having a formal mental health diagnosis (OR 0.43). Caregivers filling out the FARE survey for pediatric patients (OR 4.03) and experiencing food allergy-related mental health concerns (OR 2.36) were both significant predictors for having a formal mental health diagnosis. Conclusion: Our study highlights a continuing unmet need for mental health screening and support as part of the management of patients with food allergies.

Protocol design and synopsis: Omalizumab as Monotherapy and as Adjunct Therapy to Multiallergen OIT in Children and Adults with Food Allergy (OUtMATCH).

Background: Food allergy is common and causes substantial morbidity and even mortality. Safe and effective treatments for food allergy would therefore be highly desirable, especially for individuals with multiple food allergies. Objectives: Our aim was to describe a phase 3 study on treatment of patients with multiple food allergies with omalizumab. Methods: The study was developed as a collaboration between the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and 2 industry sponsors (Genentech and Novartis). Results: The study is currently under way, enrolling participants from age 1 year to age 55 years who are allergic to peanut and at least 2 other foods (including milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, and walnut). The study is designed to address 3 major questions. First, stage 1 will study the potential value of omalizumab for the treatment of patients with peanut allergy and at least 2 other common food allergens. Second, stage 2 will directly compare treatment of patients with multifood allergies using omalizumab as monotherapy versus treatment with omalizumab-facilitated multiallergen oral immunotherapy in which omalizumab is used as an adjunctive treatment. Third, stage 3 will address the longer-term outcomes following these treatment approaches, including the introduction of dietary forms of the study foods to induce or maintain desensitization. Conclusions: This phase 3 study will provide important information on the potential of omalizumab to treat patients with multiple food allergies.

The Added Burden of Allergen Sensitization Among Children with Severe or Poorly Controlled Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Allergen sensitization (AS) may negatively affect asthma outcomes in children with severe or poorly controlled (SPC) asthma. OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of AS on asthma exacerbations, health care use, and costs among children with SPC asthma in private and public insurance settings. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed children with SPC asthma aged 6 to 11 years from the MarketScan Commercial (private insurance) and Medicaid databases. Selection of children with SPC asthma was based on medical claims and asthma medication prescription claims. AS status was based on diagnoses of extrinsic asthma and allergic conditions. Children were followed for at least 12 months. Outcomes included asthma exacerbations, days with oral corticosteroids (OCS), and asthma-related health care use and costs. Adjusted generalized linear models were fit to compare outcomes in children with versus those without AS. RESULTS: Among children with SPC asthma, 34% had AS (private insurance: N = 11,448; Medicaid: N = 10,800), 20% did not have AS (private insurance: N = 7744; Medicaid: N = 6535), and, in the remainder, AS status could not be determined. Claims data were available for ≥3 years on average. Children with AS had significantly higher adjusted rates of asthma exacerbations during follow-up than children without AS, and significantly more days with OCS use. Rates of asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and health care costs were significantly higher among children with AS than among children without AS. CONCLUSIONS: Children with SPC asthma and AS have relatively greater asthma-related health care use and costs compared with children with SPC asthma without AS.

Possible Protective Effect of Omalizumab on Lung Function Decline in Patients Experiencing Asthma Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Frequent exacerbations are associated with greater FEV1 decline in patients with asthma. The effect of omalizumab versus placebo on lung function in patients experiencing asthma exacerbations has not been previously examined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between postbaseline (treatment phase) exacerbation status and lung function decline in children, adolescents, and adults treated with omalizumab versus placebo using data from 3 pediatric and adolescent/adult studies. METHODS: Changes in percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) and FEV1 by treatment (omalizumab/placebo) and postbaseline exacerbation status (exacerbators/nonexacerbators) were assessed in patients aged 6 to 11 years (IA05, n = 576) and 12 to 75 years (EXTRA/INNOVATE pooled, n = 1202). Pediatric patients were examined at treatment weeks 12, 24, 28, 40, and 52, and adolescent/adult data at weeks 4, 12, 20, and 28. RESULTS: Omalizumab-treated patients experienced larger increases in ppFEV1 and FEV1 compared with placebo-treated patients in the pediatric and pooled adolescent/adult populations. The response was observed in pediatric exacerbators, with significantly larger increases in ppFEV1 and FEV1 at week 12 (mean difference [95% CI], 4.11% [0.93%-7.30%], P = .011 for ppFEV1; 80 [10-140] mL, P = .017 for FEV1) and week 28 (mean difference [95% CI], 3.65% [0.11%-7.19%], P = .043 for ppFEV1; 100 [30-170] mL, P = .007 for FEV1). In the adolescent/adult population, both exacerbators and nonexacerbators derived similar benefit with omalizumab compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this post hoc analysis suggest that omalizumab may confer some protection against lung function decline among patients who experienced exacerbations during treatment.

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Stability of Blood Eosinophil Levels.

Rationale: Blood eosinophil counts are used to inform diagnosis/management of eosinophilic asthma. Objectives: Examine blood eosinophil variability and identify factors affecting eosinophil levels to inform clinical interpretation. Methods:Post hoc analysis to understand eosinophil variability using data from four randomized controlled asthma trials. We examined 1) influence of intrinsic/extrinsic factors (comorbidities, medication, and patient history) using baseline data (n = 2,612); 2) monthly variation using placebo-treated patient data (n = 713); 3) stability of eosinophil classification (<150, 150-299, and ⩾300 cells/µl) in placebo-treated patients with monthly measurements over a 1-year period (n = 751); and 4) impact of technical factors (laboratory-to-laboratory differences and time from collection to analysis). Results: Of intrinsic/extrinsic factors examined, nasal polyps increased eosinophil levels by 38%, whereas current smoking decreased levels by 23%. Substantial seasonal differences in eosinophil counts were observed, with differences of ∼20% between July and January. Eosinophil levels between 150 and 299 cells/µl were least stable, with 44% of patients remaining in the same classification for seven of 10 measurements versus 59% and 66% of patients in the <150 and ⩾300 cells/µl subgroups, respectively. Measurements at different laboratories showed high association (Spearman's correlation coefficient, R = 0.89); however, eosinophil counts were reduced, with longer time from collection to analysis, and variability increased with increasing eosinophil counts. Conclusions: Several intrinsic, extrinsic, and technical factors may influence, and should be considered in, clinical interpretation of eosinophil counts. Additionally, a single measurement may not be sufficient when using eosinophil counts for diagnosis/management of eosinophilic asthma.

Racial Disparities in Asthma-Related Health Outcomes in Children with Severe/Difficult-to-Treat Asthma.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data that examine differences in asthma etiology between black and white children with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma. OBJECTIVE: To describe demographic, clinical, and asthma-related outcomes in black and white children and examine whether differences in outcomes are explained by confounding factors in sequential multivariable models. METHODS: Black (n = 86) and white (n = 262) children aged 6-11 years from The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma: Outcomes and Treatment Regimens 3-year observational study were analyzed. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were described for both cohorts, and outcomes at month 12 were analyzed using statistical models, sequentially adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Black children were more likely to be male (79.1% vs 66.4%; P < .05), obese (12.8% vs 1.5%; P < .001), and from a lower income stratum (USD43,400 vs 55,770; P < .001) than white children. Black children had higher geometric mean IgE levels (434.8 vs 136.8 IU/mL; P < .001), were more likely to have very poorly controlled asthma (72.1% vs 53.4%), use long-term systemic corticosteroids (30.2% vs 9.2%; P < .001), have poorer quality of life (5.5 vs 6.1; P < .001), and have an emergency department visit (27.4% vs 7.7%, P < .001) in the 3 months before month 12. Differences in asthma control and the severity of exacerbations persisted even after accounting for all confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma, asthma burden is greater in black than white children particularly related to several clinical and patient-reported outcome measures that are not explained by differences in background or clinical characteristics.

Safety of Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Experience from 92 Sites in an Open-Label US Expanded Access Program.

INTRODUCTION: In phase 3 clinical trials, pirfenidone significantly slowed disease progression with a well-defined and medically manageable safety profile in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study examined safety events related to pirfenidone in patients with IPF in an expanded access program in the US. METHODS: The Expanded Access Program allowed patients with IPF access to pirfenidone prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval. Patients had an IPF diagnosis including a definite or possible usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, predicted forced vital capacity ≥50%, and predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ≥30%. Clinical laboratory data and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) deemed causally related to pirfenidone were analyzed using descriptive summary statistics. RESULTS: Of the 1620 patients treated, 1221 (75.4%) completed the program: 66.5% had definite UIP, and 33.2% had possible UIP. Mean (SD) pirfenidone exposure was 22.8 (9.6) weeks, and mean (SD) daily dose during the course of treatment was 2058.7 (399.2) mg. ADRs occurred in 64.9% of patients: 3.3% were severe and 0.2% life threatening. The most common ADRs were nausea (22.6%) and fatigue (19.6%); 13.0% of patients discontinued due to ADRs. Serious ADRs occurred in 24 patients (1.5%), which were primarily related to elevated liver function enzymes (ten patients, 0.6%). No ADRs led to death. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label study of 1620 patients with IPF, including those with possible UIP, the safety profile of pirfenidone was consistent with that of earlier clinical trials, and no new safety signals were identified. NCT02141087. FUNDING: Genentech, Inc., a member of the Roche group.

Prevention of clinically important deteriorations in COPD with umeclidinium/vilanterol.

BACKGROUND: Minimizing the risk of disease progression and exacerbations is the key goal of COPD management, as these are well-established indicators of poor COPD prognosis. We developed a novel composite end point assessing three important aspects (lung function, health status, and exacerbations) of worsening in COPD. The objective was to determine whether dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) reduces clinically important deteriorations (CIDs) in COPD versus placebo or bronchodilator monotherapy. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of two 24-week trials comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg with UMEC 62.5 µg, VI 25 µg, or placebo (Study A; NCT01313650), or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg (Study B; NCT01777334) in patients with symptomatic COPD, without a history of frequent exacerbations. Deterioration was assessed as the time to a first CID, a composite measure defined as a decrease of ≥100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second or ≥4-unit increase in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or an on-treatment moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation. RESULTS: In Study A, fewer patients experienced a first CID with UMEC/VI (44%) versus UMEC (50%), VI (56%), and placebo (75%). The risk of a first CID was reduced with UMEC/VI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.30, 0.45]), UMEC (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38, 0.56]), and VI (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.66]; all P<0.001) versus placebo, and with UMEC/VI versus UMEC (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.65, 0.97]; P<0.05) and versus VI (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.81]; P<0.001). In Study B, fewer patients experienced a first CID with UMEC/VI (41%) versus TIO (59%). UMEC/VI reduced the risk of a first composite CID by 43% versus TIO (HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.69]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis, using a new assessment of clinical deterioration in COPD, revealed that a majority of symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk experienced a deterioration during the 24-week study periods. UMEC/VI reduces the risk of a first CID versus placebo or bronchodilator monotherapy.

Is Blood Eosinophil Count a Predictor of Response to Bronchodilators in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? Results from Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with blood eosinophil (EOS) count ≥ 2% benefit from exacerbation reductions with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). We conducted post hoc analyses to determine if EOS count ≥ 2% is a marker for greater responsiveness to the bronchodilators umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist), vilanterol (VI; long-acting ß2-agonist) or UMEC/VI combination. METHODS: Effects of once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25, UMEC 62.5 and VI 25 µg versus placebo on trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores and adverse event (AE) incidences in four completed, 6-month studies were assessed by EOS subgroup. Trough FEV1 was also evaluated by ICS use and EOS subgroup. Analyses were performed using a repeated measures model. RESULTS: At baseline, 2437 of 4647 (52%) patients had EOS count ≥ 2%. Overall, ≈ 50% of patients used ICSs. At day 169, no notable variations were observed in trough FEV1 least squares mean differences between EOS subgroups versus placebo for UMEC/VI, UMEC and VI; results according to ICS use were similar. No differences were reported between EOS subgroups in TDI and SGRQ scores on day 168, or for incidences of AEs, serious AEs and AEs leading to withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Response to UMEC/VI, UMEC and VI in terms of trough FEV1, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life was similar for COPD patients with baseline EOS counts ≥ 2 or <2%. EOS count did not appear to predict bronchodilator response in either ICS users or non-users.