Safety and efficacy of benralizumab in elderly subjects with severe asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of asthma in adults >65 years old is approximately 12-14%, and 10% have severe asthma. A higher mortality rate is observed in subjects with asthma >65 years old and especially >80 years old. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness and safety of at least three doses of benralizumab in a subgroup of elderly subjects (>65 years old) with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma in real-life conditions. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study (AUTOBENRA study) conducted in 9 hospitals that included 72 patients aged >18 years old with uncontrolled severe asthma based on the Spanish Asthma Guidelines who were treated with at least three doses of benralizumab, self-administered at home since before April 30, 2021. The recruitment period ended on October 1, 2021. Written consent was obtained before the study commencement. In this subanalysis, we compared the results between patients >65 years old and patients <65 years old. RESULTS: A total of 72 subjects with severe asthma were screened, and 54 were included (MD: 57.3 ± 10 years old). There were 12 subjects aged >65 years old [MD: 69.8 ± 4.3 years old (minimum: 65 years old; maximum: 83 years old)]. Subjects >65 years old experienced statistically significant improvement in lung function, ACT and mini-AQLQ with benralizumab. Additionally, 9 patients (75%) experienced no asthma exacerbation (p = 0.0047), half (3/6) were able to stop OCS (p = 0.08), and no adverse effects with benralizumab were reported during the 20 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged >65 years old, benralizumab was an effective and safe therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma in our study, with no significant differences from the younger subgroup. This is especially important since they are a group with numerous comorbidities, medications and worse quality of life.

The impact of COVID-19 on patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: An association between the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the presence of certain chronic conditions has been suggested. However, unlike influenza and other viruses, the disease burden of COVID-19 in patients with asthma has been less evident. OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of COVID-19 in patients with asthma. METHODS: Using big-data analytics and artificial intelligence through the SAVANA Manager clinical platform, we analysed clinical data from patients with asthma from January 1 to May 10, 2020. RESULTS: Out of 71 182 patients with asthma, 1006 (1.41%) suffered from COVID-19. Compared to asthmatic individuals without COVID-19, patients with asthma and COVID-19 were significantly older (55 versus 42 years), predominantly female (66% versus 59%), smoked more frequently and had higher prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidaemias, diabetes and obesity. Allergy-related factors such as rhinitis and eczema were less common in asthmatic patients with COVID-19 (p<0.001). In addition, higher prevalence of these comorbidities was observed in patients with COVID-19 who required hospital admission. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was lower in patients who required hospitalisation due to COVID-19, as compared to non-hospitalised patients (48.3% versus 61.5%; OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.77). Although patients treated with biologics (n=865; 1.21%) showed increased severity and more comorbidities at the ear, nose and throat level, COVID-19-related hospitalisations in these patients were relatively low (0.23%). CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma and COVID-19 were older and at increased risk due to comorbidity-related factors. ICS and biologics are generally safe and may be associated with a protective effect against severe COVID-19 infection.

Pru p 3 Sublingual Immunotherapy in Patients with Lipid Transfer Protein Syndrome: Is It Worth?

BACKGROUND: Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) syndrome is an important cause of multiple plant food allergy in the Mediterranean area. The effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with the LTP Pru p 3 extract has been little investigated in the real-world setting. This study aimed to investigate the outcome of Pru p 3 SLIT in real-life patients with LTP syndrome with/without concurrent reactions to peanut and/or nuts. METHODS: This was a prospective real-life study including all patients diagnosed with LTP allergy and treated with Pru p 3 SLIT between 2011 and 2018 in a tertiary hospital in Spain. Patients underwent open oral food challenge (OFC) tests for unpeeled peach and nuts/peanuts 1 year after the treatment started to assess food tolerance. A control group of patients diagnosed with LTP allergy who refused treatment with immunotherapy were included. Severity of symptoms and diet avoidance was recorded in both groups. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with a median age of 24.7 years (range 5.5-43.1) were included: 100% were allergic to fruit; 72%, to peanut and/or nuts; 19 had a history of severe systemic reactions. Seven patients discontinued therapy; 3 (10%), due to adverse events. One year after SLIT start, 16 (73%) patients had negative OFC to peach; 95%, after 2 years; 69% had negative OFC to nuts/peanuts. The control group included 13 patients: 53.8% experienced reactions with new foods; severity of symptoms increased significantly (p < 0.001), and diet restrictions were maintained in this group. CONCLUSIONS: SLIT with Pru p 3 shows a good safety profile, and avoid dietary restrictions in patients with LTP syndrome treated in the real-life setting.

Allergenic profile to Phleum pratense and immunological changes induced after grass allergen-specific immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of molecular diagnoses has provided evidence of the existence of several different allergenic profiles in grass-sensitised individuals, reflecting the large number of allergens involved. This methodology has become a potent tool for a correct diagnosis and for the selection of the most appropriate immunotherapy. Based on these concepts, the objectives of this study were to determine the sensitisation profile of a grass-allergic population, and to treat them with specific immunotherapy. METHODS: Patients suffering from rhinitis and/or asthma associated with grass pollen were recruited. The active group was treated with depigmented-polymerised allergenic extract of mixed grass pollen. sIgE and sIgG4 to Phleum pratense, and to its individual components (Phl p 1, 2, 4, 5b, 6, 7, 11 and 12) were determined at the beginning and end of the study. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were fulfilled by 139 individuals (36 in the control group and 103 in the active group). Phl p 1 (96.4%) and Phl p 4 (91.2%) were the most recognised allergens, and 15.3% of individuals had positive IgE to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants. Levels of antigen-specific IgG4 increased significantly after treatment, and the IgE/IgG4 ratio decreased significantly in all allergens after receiving allergen-specific immunotherapy. Non-significant differences were observed in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of sensitisation to Phl p 4 was observed. Immunological efficacy was studied by measuring sIgG4 levels and the IgE/IgG4 ratio before and after treatment. Sensitisation profiles should be taken into consideration to prepare the most appropriate immunotherapy containing all the relevant and needed allergens.