Patients taking benralizumab, dupilumab, or mepolizumab have lower postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunity.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies inhibiting the IL-4 or IL-5 pathways are very effective in the treatment of asthma and other related conditions. However, the cytokines IL-4 and IL-5 also play a role in the generation of adaptive immune responses. Although these biologics do not cause overt immunosuppression, their effect in primary severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization has not been studied completely. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the antibody and cellular immunity after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in patients on biologics (PoBs). METHODS: Patients with severe asthma or atopic dermatitis who were taking benralizumab, dupilumab, or mepolizumab and had received the initial dose of the 2-dose adult SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine were enrolled in a prospective, observational study. As our control group, we used a cohort of immunologically healthy subjects (with no significant immunosuppression) who were not taking biologics (NBs). We used a multiplexed immunoassay to measure antibody levels, neutralization assays to assess antibody function, and flow cytometry to quantitate Spike-specific lymphocytes. RESULTS: We analyzed blood from 57 patients in the PoB group and 46 control subjects from the NB group. The patients in the PoB group had lower levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, pseudovirus neutralization, live virus neutralization, and frequencies of Spike-specific B and CD8 T cells at 6 months after vaccination. In subgroup analyses, patients with asthma who were taking biologics had significantly lower pseudovirus neutralization than did subjects with asthma who were not taking biologics. CONCLUSION: The patients in the PoB group had reduced SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody titers, neutralizing activity, and virus-specific B- and CD8 T-cell counts. These results have implications when considering development of a more individualized immunization strategy in patients who receive biologic medications blocking IL-4 or IL-5 pathways.

Asthma diagnosis using patient-reported outcome measures and objective diagnostic tests: now and into the future.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The global prevalence of asthma continues to increase; however, asthma remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. This results in a significant burden on the healthcare system and preventable patient morbidity and mortality. Over-diagnosis of asthma based on clinical history alone also complicates patient management. This heightens the importance of a prompt and accurate asthma diagnosis. Therefore, a review of the literature was performed regarding both objective diagnostic testing for asthma and using patient-reported outcome measures. RECENT FINDINGS: The cornerstone of asthma diagnosis remains spirometry with testing for bronchodilator reversibility testing for pediatric and adult populations. This test may need to be repeated at multiple time points due to its low sensitivity. Peak flow measurement, fractional exhaled nitric oxide testing, and allergy testing are useful adjuncts to the diagnosis and phenotyping of asthma. Bronchoprovocation testing is reserved for people with high clinical suspicion for asthma, but negative spirometry. Novel noninvasive testing modalities may play a diagnostic role in the future. The advent of remote digital health monitoring technology has resulted in revisiting patient-reported outcome measures for the diagnosis and monitoring of asthma. SUMMARY: Overall, improved diagnostic tools for asthma are crucial for earlier recognition and treatment of the disease and improved patient care outcomes worldwide.

Food Allergy Management Practices Utilizing Individual Patient Thresholds: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee.

The paradigm for food allergy management has been strict avoidance of the food allergen. There is literature supporting a "high-threshold" phenotype, those who tolerate a small-to-modest amount of allergen but react to larger amounts. There is no consensus for best practice for these "high-threshold" individuals. We sought to understand management practices of "high-threshold" reactors using a survey that was distributed to a random sample of fellows and members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. There were 89 respondents from the United States and Canada (11% response rate), with 64 (72%) answering all questions. Participants worked in private (52%) and academic practice (38%) and saw a median of 30 food allergic patients monthly. Eighty-one percent of respondents reported management strategies other than strict avoidance. When threshold was known, strategies ranged from allowing ingestion up to a specified amount (57%), proactively advising ingestion to a certain amount (56%), or oral immunotherapy (47%). Participants were more likely to choose a permissive approach for a mild reaction in a high-threshold milk-allergic patient compared with a peanut-allergic patient (83% vs 71%, p=.01). Important factors that influenced the approach included severity of reaction (52%), comfort with family/patient using emergency medications (42%), and family/patient preferences (41%). These survey results suggest that food allergy management recommendations are no longer binary in nature, with clinicians solely recommending avoidance for those who are allergic and ingestion for those who may not be.