Novel asthma treatments: Advancing Beyond Approved Novel Step-Up Therapies for Asthma.

Over the past two decades, the management of severe asthma has shifted from relying on inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators to more precise, targeted approaches. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) designed to address specific molecular pathways in asthma have transformed care for patients with severe asthma. Since therapy targeting immunoglobulin E (IgE) became the first biologic developed for allergic asthma in 2003, monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-5 receptor, IL-4/13 receptor, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) have been approved for treating difficult-to-treat asthma, improving symptoms, reducing exacerbations, and reducing oral corticosteroid dosing. Despite these advances, many patients continue to experience asthma exacerbations and symptoms, and fail to achieve remission. To address this, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are exploring novel therapies targeting different aspects of asthma pathophysiology, including cytokines, enzymes, and cellular pathways. Innovative treatments like inhaled biologics, ultra-long-acting biologics, and combination biologics are in development. New molecular targets, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK), Ox40 ligand, and Janus kinase (JAK), offer promise for addressing unmet needs in asthma care. While many therapies have failed to get approval for use due to lack of efficacy, trial design, or toxicity, these experiments still provide insights into asthma's underlying mechanisms. The future of asthma management looks promising, with emerging therapies aiming to improve patient outcomes. The challenge will lie in identifying the right therapy for each patient and developing personalized treatment strategies.

Advancing precision medicine in asthma: Evolution of treatment outcomes.

The article discusses the historical evolution of asthma treatment and highlights recent advancements in personalized medicine, specifically the use of biologics in severe asthma therapy and its potential combination with allergen immunotherapy (AIT). One of the major breakthroughs of biologics is their potential effect on airway remodeling, a crucial aspect of asthma chronicity. The article introduces the concept of disease-modifying antiasthmatic drugs, which aim to modify the course of asthma and possibly modulate or prevent airway remodeling. Furthermore, the critical importance of patient-centered outcome measures to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of asthma treatments is emphasized, with the innovative concept of asthma remission introduced as a potential outcome. Recent studies suggest that AIT can be used as an additional therapy to biologic agents for the treatment of allergic asthma. The combination of these treatments has been shown to induce improved clinical outcomes. However, AIT is actually not recommended for use in patients with severe asthma, but encouraging results from studies investigating the combined use of AIT and biologics indicate a novel approach to exploring these treatment modalities. In conclusion, the introduction of biologics and AIT has changed the scenario of respiratory allergy treatment, from a "one size fits all" approach to embracing "individual treatments."

Pretreatment Alveolar Nitric Oxide Levels Predict Improvement of Pulmonary Function 1 Year Following Anti-Asthma Treatments in Patients with Inhaled Corticosteroid-Naïve Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are fundamental agents to subside airway inflammation and improve forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) among asthmatics. Alveolar concentrations of nitric oxide (CANO), as well as the classical fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO50), are associated with the pathophysiology of asthma. However, the association between pretreatment CANO levels and response to anti-asthma treatments, including ICS, remains unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 107 patients newly diagnosed with asthma. ICS in combination with long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) was initiated. FEV1 and FeNO levels were evaluated at diagnosis and were followed up at 6 and 12 months after the treatment intervention. CANO levels were estimated using various expiratory flows of FeNO measurements. Factors associated with annual changes in FEV1 (ΔFEV1) were analyzed. Patients with a ΔFEV1 <-20 mL were defined as "poor-responders." RESULTS: FEV1, FeNO50, and CANO levels significantly improved by anti-asthma treatments. The average ΔFEV1 was 85 (176) mL. Eighty-two patients continuously took ICS/LABA treatment. Higher pretreatment CANO levels and continuous use of LABA were independent predictive factors for the improvement of FEV1 on multivariate analysis. The decline in FeNO50 and CANO levels by the anti-asthma treatments was significantly greater in 81 responders than in 26 poor-responders. CANO, but not FeNO50, levels at 12 months were significantly higher in poor-responders than in responders (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Levels of CANO, but not FeNO50, predict changes in pulmonary function in ICS-naïve asthmatics. Meanwhile, persistently high levels of CANO may be related to poor responsiveness to treatments assessed by ΔFEV1.

Role of Biologics in Asthma.

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma have disproportionally high morbidity and healthcare utilization as compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Although treatment options for these patients were previously limited, with unacceptable side effects, the emergence of biologic therapies for the treatment of asthma has provided promising targeted therapy for these patients. Biologic therapies target specific inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma, particularly in patients with an endotype driven by type 2 (T2) inflammation. In addition to anti-IgE therapy that has improved outcomes in allergic asthma for more than a decade, three anti-IL-5 biologics and one anti-IL-4R biologic have recently emerged as promising treatments for T2 asthma. These targeted therapies have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce oral corticosteroid use, and improve quality of life in appropriately selected patients. In addition to the currently approved biologic agents, several biologics targeting upstream inflammatory mediators are in clinical trials, with possible approval on the horizon. This article reviews the mechanism of action, indications, expected benefits, and side effects of each of the currently approved biologics for severe uncontrolled asthma and discusses promising therapeutic targets for the future.

Asthma phenotyping: a necessity for improved therapeutic precision and new targeted therapies.

Asthma is a common heterogeneous disease with a complex pathophysiology that carries a significant mortality rate and high morbidity. Current therapies based on inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonists remain effective in a large proportion of patients with asthma, but ~10% (considered to have 'severe asthma') do not respond to these treatments even at high doses or with the use of oral corticosteroids. Analytical clustering methods have revealed phenotypes that include dependence on high-dose corticosteroid treatment, severe airflow obstruction and recurrent exacerbations associated with an allergic background and late onset of disease. One severe phenotype is eosinophilic inflammation-predominant asthma, with late-onset disease, rhinosinusitis, aspirin sensitivity and exacerbations. Blood and sputum eosinophilia have been used to distinguish patients with high Th2 inflammation and to predict therapeutic response to treatments targeted towards Th2-associated cytokines. New therapies in the form of humanized antibodies against Th2 targets, such as anti-IgE, anti-IL4Rα, anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-13 antibodies, have shown encouraging results in terms of reduction in exacerbations and improvement in airflow in patients with a 'Th2-high' expression profile and blood eosinophilia. Research efforts are now focusing on elucidating the phenotypes underlying the non-Th2-high (or Th2-low) group, which constitutes ~50% of severe asthma cases. There is an increasing need to use biomarkers to indicate the group of patients who will respond to a specifically targeted treatment. The use of improved tools to measure activity of disease, a better definition of severe asthma and the delineation of inflammatory pathways with omics analyses using computational tools, will lead to better-defined phenotypes for specific therapies.

Response to Mepolizumab Treatment in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma and Atopic Phenotypes.

PURPOSE: Improved understanding of characteristics that may influence treatment response across phenotypes may help guide treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of MENSA, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT01691521). Patients aged ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab (75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. Outcomes assessed were the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Subgroup analyses were performed by baseline blood eosinophil count (<150, ≥150-300, ≥300 cells/µL) within atopic subgroups (non-atopic [specific immunoglobulin E <0.35 kU/L], atopic [≥0.35-17.5 kU/L], strongly atopic [>17.5 kU/L]), and by house dust mite (HDM) sensitivity. RESULTS: Of 576 patients analyzed, 272 were non-atopic, 181 were atopic and 94 were strongly atopic; 29 had missing atopy data. In patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL, mepolizumab versus placebo reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 74%, 43% and 25% in the non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic subgroups. Similar reductions were observed in all atopic subgroups in other blood eosinophil count categories where there were sufficient patient numbers for analysis, except for non-atopic patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of <150 cells/µL. Improvements in ACQ-5 scores of -0.75, -0.73 and -0.78 with mepolizumab versus placebo were observed in non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL; consistent improvements in ACQ-5 were not observed in patients with blood eosinophil counts <150 or ≥150-300 cells/µL. Reductions in clinically significant exacerbations with mepolizumab versus placebo were also observed irrespective of sensitivity to HDMs. CONCLUSION: Mepolizumab was associated with a trend for reductions in clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, irrespective of atopic status or HDM sensitivity.

Emerging Cell-Based Therapies in Chronic Lung Diseases: What About Asthma?

Asthma is a widespread disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation. It causes substantial disability, impaired quality of life, and avoidable deaths around the world. The main treatment for asthmatic patients is the administration of corticosteroids, which improves the quality of life; however, prolonged use of corticosteroids interferes with extracellular matrix elements. Therefore, cell-based therapies are emerging as a novel therapeutic contribution to tissue regeneration for lung diseases. This study aimed to summarize the advancements in cell therapy involving mesenchymal stromal cells, extracellular vesicles, and immune cells such as T-cells in asthma. Our findings provide evidence that the use of mesenchymal stem cells, their derivatives, and immune cells such as T-cells are an initial milestone to understand how emergent cell-based therapies are effective to face the challenges in the development, progression, and management of asthma, thus improving the quality of life.

Biologics for Severe Asthma: Treatment-Specific Effects Are Important in Choosing a Specific Agent.

Patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma have greater morbidity, greater use of health care resources, and more impairment in health-related quality of life when compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Fortunately, since the introduction of biological therapeutics, patients with severe eosinophilic asthma now have beneficial treatment options that they did not have just a few years ago. In addition to anti-IgE therapy for allergic asthma, 3 new biological therapeutics targeting IL-5 and 1 targeting IL-4 and IL-13 signaling have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, and approval of more biological therapeutics is on the horizon. These medications decrease the frequency of asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid usage, and improve health-related quality of life. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, specific indications, benefits, and side effects of each of the approved biological therapies for asthma. Furthermore, this article reviews how a clinician could use specific patient characteristics to decide which biologic treatment may be optimal for a given patient.

Benralizumab: a unique IL-5 inhibitor for severe asthma.

The presence of eosinophilic inflammation is a characteristic feature of chronic and acute inflammation in asthma. An estimated 5%-10% of the 300 million people worldwide who suffer from asthma have a severe form. Patients with eosinophilic airway inflammation represent approximately 40%-60% of this severe asthmatic population. This form of asthma is often uncontrolled, marked by refractoriness to standard therapy, and shows persistent airway eosinophilia despite glucocorticoid therapy. This paper reviews personalized novel therapies, more specifically benralizumab, a humanized anti-IL-5Rα antibody, while also being the first to provide an algorithm for potential candidates who may benefit from anti-IL-5Rα therapy.

New combination treatments in the management of asthma: focus on fluticasone/vilanterol.

Despite the 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel 3 guidelines for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma, many patients with poorly controlled asthma still continue to tax the health care system. Controlling asthma symptoms and preventing acute exacerbations have been the foundation of care. Using long-term controller treatments such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) is a common approach. While patient responses to recommended pharmacotherapy may vary, poor adherence to therapy also contributes to poor asthma control. A once-daily combination inhaler, such as fluticasone furoate, an ICS, in combination with vilanterol, a LABA, offers increased convenience and potential improved adherence, which should result in enhanced clinical outcomes and reduced exacerbations. The ICS/LABA combination inhaler of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol is currently approved in the United States for use in the maintenance of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and to reduce exacerbations. This paper reviews the expanding literature on the efficacy of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol in treating asthma.