Single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics capture eosinophil development and identify the role of IL-5 in their lineage transit amplification.

The activities, ontogeny, and mechanisms of lineage expansion of eosinophils are less well resolved than those of other immune cells, despite the use of biological therapies targeting the eosinophilia-promoting cytokine interleukin (IL)-5 or its receptor, IL-5Rα. We combined single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics and generated transgenic IL-5Rα reporter mice to revisit eosinophilopoiesis. We reconciled human and murine eosinophilopoiesis and provided extensive cell-surface immunophenotyping and transcriptomes at different stages along the continuum of eosinophil maturation. We used these resources to show that IL-5 promoted eosinophil-lineage expansion via transit amplification, while its deletion or neutralization did not compromise eosinophil maturation. Informed from our resources, we also showed that interferon response factor-8, considered an essential promoter of myelopoiesis, was not intrinsically required for eosinophilopoiesis. This work hence provides resources, methods, and insights for understanding eosinophil ontogeny, the effects of current precision therapeutics, and the regulation of eosinophil development and numbers in health and disease.

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in allergy: Targeting IgE, cytokine, and alarmin pathways.

The etiology of allergy is closely linked to type 2 inflammatory responses ultimately leading to the production of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), a key driver of many allergic conditions. At a high level, initial allergen exposure disrupts epithelial integrity, triggering local inflammation via alarmins including IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP, which activate type 2 innate lymphoid cells as well as other immune cells to secrete type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, promoting Th2 cell development and eosinophil recruitment. Th2 cell dependent B cell activation promotes the production of allergen-specific IgE, which stably binds to basophils and mast cells. Rapid degranulation of these cells upon allergen re-exposure leads to allergic symptoms. Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying allergic pathophysiology have significantly shaped the development of therapeutic intervention strategies. In this review, we highlight key therapeutic targets within the allergic cascade with a particular focus on past, current and future treatment approaches using monoclonal antibodies. Specific targeting of alarmins, type 2 cytokines and IgE has shown varying degrees of clinical benefit in different allergic indications including asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, food allergies and eosinophilic esophagitis. While multiple therapeutic antibodies have been approved for clinical use, scientists are still working on ways to improve on current treatment approaches. Here, we provide context to understand therapeutic targeting strategies and their limitations, discussing both knowledge gaps and promising future directions to enhancing clinical efficacy in allergic disease management.

Utility of eosinophil peroxidase as a biomarker of eosinophilic inflammation in asthma.

BACKGROUND: The relative utility of eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) and blood and sputum eosinophil counts as disease biomarkers in asthma is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the utility of EPX as a biomarker of systemic and airway eosinophilic inflammation in asthma. METHODS: EPX protein was measured by immunoassay in serum and sputum in 110 healthy controls to establish a normal reference range and in repeated samples of serum and sputum collected during 3 years of observation in 480 participants in the Severe Asthma Research Program 3. RESULTS: Over 3 years, EPX levels in patients with asthma were higher than normal in 27% to 31% of serum samples and 36% to 53% of sputum samples. Eosinophils and EPX correlated better in blood than in sputum (rs values of 0.74 and 0.43, respectively), and high sputum EPX levels occurred in 27% of participants with blood eosinophil counts less than 150 cells/µL and 42% of participants with blood eosinophil counts between 150 and 299 cells/µL. Patients with persistently high sputum EPX values for 3 years were characterized by severe airflow obstruction, frequent exacerbations, and high mucus plug scores. In 59 patients with asthma who started mepolizumab during observation, serum EPX levels normalized in 96% but sputum EPX normalized in only 49%. Lung function remained abnormal even when sputum EPX normalized. CONCLUSIONS: Serum EPX is a valid protein biomarker of systemic eosinophilic inflammation in asthma, and sputum EPX levels are a more sensitive biomarker of airway eosinophilic inflammation than sputum eosinophil counts. Eosinophil measures in blood frequently miss airway eosinophilic inflammation, and mepolizumab frequently fails to normalize airway eosinophilic inflammation even though it invariably normalizes systemic eosinophilic inflammation.

Anti-IL-4R versus anti-IL-5/5R after anti-IL-5/5R failure in asthma: An emulated target trial.

BACKGROUND: Switching biologics is now common practice in severe eosinophilic asthma. After insufficient response to anti-IL-5 or 5 receptor (anti-IL-5/5R), the optimal switch between an anti-IL-4R mAb (interclass) or another anti-IL-5/5R drug (intraclass) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the effectiveness of these 2 strategies in asthma control in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and insufficient response to an anti-IL-5/5R mAb. METHODS: We emulated a target randomized trial using observational data from the Recherche sur les AsthMes SEvèreS (RAMSES) cohort. Eligible patients were switched to an anti-IL-4R mAb or another anti-IL-5/5R drug after insufficient response to an anti-IL-5/5R mAb. The primary outcome was the change in Asthma Control Test score at 6 months. RESULTS: Among the 2046 patients in the cohort, 151 were included in the study: 103 switched to an anti-IL-4R mAb and 48 to another anti-IL-5/5R. At 6 months, the difference in Asthma Control Test score improvement was not statistically significant (mean difference groups, 0.82 [-0.47 to 2.10], P = .213). The interclass group exhibited greater cumulative reduction in oral corticosteroid dose (Pinter-intra, -1.05 g [-1.76 to -0.34], P = .041). The interclass group had a better effect, although not significantly, on reducing exacerbations (Δinter-intra, -0.37 [-0.77 to 0.02], P = .124) and increasing lung function (FEV1) (126.8 mL [-12.7 to 266.4], P = .124). CONCLUSIONS: After anti-IL-5/5R mAb insufficient response, switching to dupilumab demonstrated similar improvement in Asthma Control Test scores compared with intraclass switching. However, it appeared more effective in reducing oral corticosteroid use. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Mepolizumab incompletely suppresses clinical flares in a pilot study of episodic angioedema with eosinophilia.

BACKGROUND: Episodic angioedema with eosinophilia (EAE) is a rare multilineage cyclic syndrome of unknown etiology characterized by episodes of angioedema, myalgia, fatigue, and fever that occur every 3 to 8 weeks and resolve between episodes without therapy. Cyclic elevations in serum IL-5 levels and neutrophils precede the increase in absolute eosinophil count (AEC) in most patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the role of IL-5-driven eosinophilia in the clinical manifestations of EAE. METHODS: An open-label pilot study of mepolizumab (700 mg intravenously monthly for 3 months followed by sequential dose reduction to the Food and Drug Administration-approved dose of 300 mg subcutaneously monthly) was conducted. The primary end point was reduction in the number and severity of clinical symptoms as assessed by patient-reported symptom questionnaires. Secondary end points were greater than or equal to 75% reduction in peak AEC after 1 dose of mepolizumab and sustained reduction in AEC after 3 doses of mepolizumab. Exploratory end points included effects of mepolizumab treatment on other cell lineages (numbers and surface marker expression), levels of plasma mediators, and biomarkers of eosinophil activation. RESULTS: Four female and 1 male (median age, 45 years) participants with EAE were enrolled. None of the 5 participants experienced a reduction in the number of symptomatic flares on mepolizumab therapy, and 1 participant withdrew before study completion because of lack of improvement. Peak AEC was reduced by 75% or more in 3 participants after the first dose of mepolizumab and in 4 participants after 3 doses. CONCLUSIONS: In a small cohort of participants with EAE, mepolizumab was unsuccessful in substantially reducing clinical symptoms despite reduction in AEC.

Race and ethnicity, not just insurance, is associated with biologics initiation in asthma and related conditions.

BACKGROUND: There are pre-existing inequities in asthma care. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate effect modification by race of the effect of insurance on biologic therapy use in patients with asthma and related diseases. METHODS: We conducted inverse probability weighted analyses using electronic health records data from 2011 to 2020 from a large health care system in Boston, Mass. We evaluated the odds of not initiating omalizumab or mepolizumab therapy within 1 year of prescription for an approved indication. RESULTS: We identified 1132 individuals who met study criteria. Twenty-seven percent of these patients had public insurance and 12% belonged to a historically marginalized group (HMG). One-quarter of patients did not initiate the prescribed biologic. Among patients with asthma, individuals belonging to HMG had higher exacerbation rates in the period before initiation compared to non-HMG individuals, regardless of insurance type. Among HMG patients with asthma, those with private insurance were less likely to not initiate therapy compared to those with public insurance (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67, and 95% CI: 0.56-0.79). Among non-HMG with asthma, privately insured and publicly insured individuals had similar rates of not initiating the prescribed biologic (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.95-1.09). Among those publicly insured with asthma, HMGs had higher odds of not initiating therapy compared to non-HMGs (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03-1.31), but privately insured HMG and non-HMG did not differ significantly (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.91-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Publicly insured individuals belonging to HMG are less likely to initiate biologics when prescribed despite having more severe asthma, while there are no inequities by insurance in individuals belonging to other groups.

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.

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in a lung transplant recipient treated with mepolizumab.

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is a complex hypersensitivity reaction to Aspergillus spp. ABPA diagnosis may be challenging due to its non-specific presentation. Standard ABPA treatment consists of systemic corticosteroids and antifungal agents. Mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 seems to be a promising treatment for ABPA. Data about ABPA following lung transplantation (LuTx) are scarce. LuTx recipients are at higher risk for adverse effects of ABPA treatment compared to the general population. Here we present a case of a LuTx recipient who was successfully treated with mepolizumab for ABPA following LuTx. Prolonged administration of high dose prednisone was thus avoided. To our knowledge, this is the first case describing mepolizumab administration following LuTx. Mepolizumab seems particularly attractive as a corticosteroid-sparing agent or as an alternative option to antifungal treatments, because of its excellent safety profile and low risk of drug interactions.

Cluster Analysis Identifies Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Who Achieve Super-Response and Remission With Mepolizumab.

This study identifies two distinct subgroups of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who respond differently to mepolizumab. Cluster analysis reveals that patients with a family history of asthma, positive skin prick tests and higher baseline lung function have better treatment outcomes, highlighting the value of personalised treatment strategies.

Biologics (mepolizumab and omalizumab) induced remission in severe asthma patients.

BACKGROUND: Asthma remission has emerged as a potential treatment goal. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two biologics (mepolizumab/omalizumab) in achieving asthma remission. METHODS: This observational study included 453 severe asthma patients (41% male; mean age ± SD 55.7 ± 14.7 years) from two real-world drug registries: the Australian Mepolizumab Registry and the Australian Xolair Registry. The composite outcome clinical remission was defined as zero exacerbations and zero oral corticosteroids during the previous 6 months assessed at 12 months and 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) ≤1 at 12 months. We also assessed clinical remission plus optimization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80%) or stabilization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 not greater than 5% decline from baseline) of lung function at 12 months. Sensitivity analyses explored various cut-offs of ACQ-5/FEV1 scores. The predictors of clinical remission were identified. RESULTS: 29.3% (73/249) of AMR and 22.8% (37/162) of AXR cohort met the criteria for clinical remission. When lung function criteria were added, the remission rates were reduced to 25.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses identified that the remission rate ranged between 18.1% and 34.9% in the AMR cohort and 10.6% and 27.2% in the AXR cohort. Better lung function, lower body mass index, mild disease and absence of comorbidities such as obesity, depression and osteoporosis predicted the odds of achieving clinical remission. CONCLUSION: Biologic treatment with mepolizumab or omalizumab for severe asthma-induced asthma remission in a subgroup of patients. Remission on treatment may be an achievable treatment target and future studies should consider remission as an outcome measure.

Mepolizumab depletes inflammatory but preserves homeostatic eosinophils in severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophils are key therapeutic targets in severe asthma that are suppressed by IL5 (mepolizumab) and IL5 receptor (benralizumab) blockade. The effect of IL5 pathway biologics on recently described homeostatic (hEOs) and inflammatory (iEOs) eosinophil subsets is unknown. We aimed to determine the relative impact of mepolizumab and benralizumab treatment on eosinophil subset and phenotype, and explore clinical associations of eosinophil subsets with severe asthma characteristics and treatment response. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional observational study of severe asthma (eosinophilic n = 32, non-eosinophilic n = 23, mepolizumab-treated n = 25), with longitudinal follow-up of 30 eosinophilic participants at two timepoints (4-24 weeks, >24 weeks) post-commencement of mepolizumab (n = 20) or benralizumab (n = 10). Blood hEOs and iEOs were measured by flow cytometry assessment of surface CD62L protein. RESULTS: iEO proportion was significantly lower in mepolizumab-treated participants in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Mepolizumab and benralizumab depleted iEOs to a similar extent, however a significantly greater number of hEOs remained in mepolizumab participants at follow-up. Greater iEO proportion correlated with poorer asthma control in eosinophilic but not non-eosinophilic asthma. Higher residual iEO proportion correlated with poorer asthma control in mepolizumab-treated individuals. Reduced blood eosinophil viability was observed in around half of mepolizumab-treated participants, which was associated with significantly better asthma control and spirometry. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab depletes iEOs and reduces circulating eosinophil viability in severe asthma but preserves a residual population of circulatory hEOs. In contrast benralizumab depleted both iEOs and hEOs. Higher iEO abundance and eosinophil viability are associated with poorer clinical outcomes following mepolizumab-treatment. Monitoring circulating eosinophil phenotype and viability may be useful to predict biologic treatment response in severe asthma.

Targeting the IL-5 pathway in eosinophilic asthma: A comparison of anti-IL-5 versus anti-IL-5 receptor agents.

Eosinophilic asthma is characterized by frequent exacerbations, poor symptom control and accelerated lung function decline. It is now recognized that the immune response underlying eosinophilic asthma involves a complex network of interconnected pathways from both the adaptive and innate immune systems. Within this response, interleukin-5 (IL-5) plays a central role in eosinophil differentiation, activation and survival and has emerged as a key target for therapies treating severe asthma. The monoclonal antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab target the ligand IL-5, preventing its interaction with eosinophils; in contrast, benralizumab binds to the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), preventing IL-5 from binding and leading to substantially greater eosinophil reduction by enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Although no direct head-to-head clinical trials of asthma have been published to formally evaluate the clinical significance of these different therapeutic approaches, the potential benefits of partial versus complete eosinophil depletion continue to remain an important area of study and debate. Here, we review the existing real-world and clinical study data of anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5R therapies in severe eosinophilic asthma.

Effectiveness of Mepolizumab in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma with/without Nasal Polyposis: A Real-Life Study.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases and affects around 334 million people worldwide. The estimated prevalence of severe asthma is 3-10% of the asthmatic population. Mepolizumab has demonstrated efficacy in reducing exacerbations, oral corticosteroid use, and improving quality of life, asthma control, and lung function in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Our study aimed to check the response to mepolizumab in a series of severe asthma patients regarding exacerbations, oral corticosteroid use, asthma control, quality of life, and lung function and to compare the response between patients with and without nasal polyps. METHOD: This is a retrospective, multicenter study of RE-ASGRAMUR (Register of Severe Asthma of the Region of Murcia) performed in eight hospitals of the Region of Murcia (Spain) under routine clinical practice conditions. We included patients diagnosed with SEA who completed at least 1 year of treatment with mepolizumab. We analyzed clinical characteristics, drug tolerance, and effectiveness: exacerbations, ACT, miniAQLQ, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and use of oral corticosteroids. We also compared the results between patients with and without nasal polyps. RESULTS: The median of exacerbations before treatment was 3 and decreased to 0 after treatment (mean decrease of 77.4%). The median diary oral prednisone intake was 15 mg before treatment and 5 mg after treatment (mean 56% reduction). We have obtained a significant improvement in other variables: ED visits and hospitalizations, asthma control (ACT), quality of life (miniAQLQ), and lung function (FEV1). Thirty-four out of 70 patients (48.57%) fulfilled the criteria of super-responder, and 17 out of 70 (24.29%) had a complete response. More patients in the group with nasal polyps fulfilled the criteria of super-responder and complete response to mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab is a safe and effective treatment for SEA patients, improving exacerbations, oral corticosteroid intake, asthma control, quality of life, and lung function. In patients with associated nasal polyposis, there is a statistically significant higher proportion of super-responders and complete responders.

Comparison of the General Characteristics of Patients with Severe Asthma Who Switched from Omalizumab to Mepolizumab versus Patients Who Responded to Omalizumab Treatment: A Real-Life Study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe asthma is characterized by frequent recurrent airway symptoms and exacerbations, and these affect the quality of life. Biological agents can be used in the treatment of patients with severe asthma if the disease cannot be controlled with standard controller treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and laboratory data of patients with severe asthma who were switched from omalizumab to mepolizumab and patients with severe asthma who responded to omalizumab. METHODS: The clinical characteristics and laboratory data of patients with severe asthma who responded to omalizumab and switched from omalizumab to mepolizumab were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: Evaluation was made of a total of 79 patients, including 64 omalizumab responders and 15 who switched to mepolizumab from omalizumab. After omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment, the annual number of asthma attacks, the use of oral corticosteroid (OCS), the annual number of hospitalizations, and the eosinophil count significantly decreased (omalizumab: p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively; mepolizumab: p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.001, respectively). After omalizumab treatment, the increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (%) and asthma control test (ACT) score were determined to be statistically significant (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). After mepolizumab treatment, the increase in ACT score was significant (p = 0.003). Drug allergy, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), regular use of OCS, and high baseline eosinophil count (cells/µL) were associated with poor response to omalizumab treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 7.86, p = 0.003; OR = 52.92, p < 0.001; OR = 10.16, p = 0.004; OR = 0.99, p = 0.004, respectively). House dust mite sensitivity and high baseline FEV1 (%) were associated with good response to omalizumab treatment (OR = 0.29, p = 0.041; OR = 1.06, p = 0.03, respectively). The blood eosinophil count had diagnostic value in predicting the nonresponsiveness to omalizumab treatment (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.967, p < 0.001, cut-off: 510). CONCLUSION: A high pretreatment eosinophil count, concomitant CRSwNP, a history of drug allergy, and regular OCS use may be associated with poor response to omalizumab treatment in patients with severe asthma. Depending on the treatment response, treatment switching can be applied between biological agents. The results of the current study should be supported by multicenter studies.

Factors Affecting the Ability to Discontinue Oral Corticosteroid Use in Patients with EGPA Treated with Anti-Interleukin-5 Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) and some with severe eosinophilic asthma require continuous long-term oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment for disease control. The anti-interleukin-5 agent, mepolizumab, has recently become available for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma and EGPA, with promising results and safety profiles. The proportion of patients with EGPA who discontinued oral steroids was 18% in the MIRRA trial. To compare patients with EGPA who were able to discontinue steroids with mepolizumab with those who could not. METHODS: Twenty patients with EGPA treated with mepolizumab were evaluated at Osaka Habikino Medical Center. The OCS dose, asthma control test score, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, peripheral eosinophil count, and spirometric parameters were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the mean OCS dose from a prednisolone equivalent of 8.88 ± 4.99 mg/day to 3.18 ± 3.47 mg/day (p < 0.001). In this study, 40% of patients discontinued oral steroids. The most common reason for the failure to discontinue steroids in patients was poor asthma control. The percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s significantly improved in patients with EGPA who could discontinue steroids after receiving mepolizumab. CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, treatment with mepolizumab for EGPA was associated with a significant reduction in OCS use; however, poor asthma control was identified as an inhibiting factor for steroid reduction.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Omalizumab and Mepolizumab in Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is heterogeneous in both phenotypes and endotypes. Due to insufficient head-to-head comparison studies, it is hard to decide which biological to initiate. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of omalizumab and mepolizumab which can be used in the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma diagnosed with N-ERD. METHODS: The population of this observational, cross-sectional study comprised of N-ERD patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 6 months for severe asthma. Outcomes included the asthma control test (ACT), and sino-nasal outcome test scores (SNOT-22), blood eosinophil counts at initiation of biological treatment (T0, baseline) and at the end of 6th months (T6). Adverse effects related to biological treatment and changes of oral corticosteroids dose was recorded. RESULTS: The study included a total of 22 patients, of whom 11 received mepolizumab and 11 received omalizumab. The change in ACT, SNOT-22, eosinophil counts, and adverse effects related to biologicals were similar at T6 (p = 0.606, p = 0.168, p = 0.05, p = 0.053, respectively). However, when examining the SNOT-22 and ACT based on the cumulative distribution curve (SUCRA), mepolizumab (SUCRA value: 0.61, 0.72, respectively) demonstrated greater efficacy compared to omalizumab (SUCRA value: 0.19, 0.35, respectively). The oral corticosteroids discontinuation rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found both omalizumab and mepolizumab to be effective in treatment; however, we determined that mepolizumab may have a potential superiority in efficacy.

Multidisciplinary Decision-Making-ITAlian Consensus After Two Years of Real Practice on the Management of Severe Uncontrolled CRSwNP by Biologics (ITACA Study).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments. RECENT FINDINGS: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.

Efficacy of mepolizumab and omalizumab combination therapy in uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Results of biological therapies are often encouraging for severe asthma who are phenotyped as Type 2 inflammation. Unfortunately, some patients do not achieve the desired responses. In this group of patients, there are often switches between anti Ig E and anti-IL-5s and partial improvements are often is deemed sufficient. METHOD: We planned to start combination therapy with mepolizumab and omalizumab in a 52-year-old patient with uncontrolled allergic asthma whose asthma could not be controlled with omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment, respectively. After complete asthma control was achieved, we aimed to discontinue mepolizumab and continue with omalizumab because it was allergic asthma. RESULT: The combination of omalizumab 300 mg/month and mepolizumab 100 mg/month was tried and emergency admissions and oral corticosteroids were stopped. At the same time, significant improvement was observed in asthma control test, pulmonary function test and comfort of life. CONCLUSION: Combined use of Anti-Ig E (omalizumab) and Anti IL 5 (mepolizumab) with a synergistic effect by acting through both pathways, especially in patients with allergic asthma and high levels of both total Ig E and eosinophilia, was found to be effective and no side effects were observed in long-term follow-up. Combination therapy with omalizumab and mepolizumab may become a safe option in patients with severe allergic asthma with a Type 2 inflammatory phenotype who cannot be controlled with each biologic agent.

Dual biologics therapy in a patient with severe asthma and chronic urticaria: a case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The data on the use of dual biologics are scant, but a topic of current interest. CASE STUDY: In this report, the treatment regimen of a patient with two T helper 2 pathway-related comorbidities, severe asthma, and chronic spontaneous urticaria, was presented. RESULTS: Both urticaria and asthma symptoms of the patient could not be controlled entirely with monotherapy while both diseases could be controlled after omalizumab-mepolizumab dual treatment. No adverse events were observed after 6 months of dual biologics use. CONCLUSION: This report supports other publications in the literature involving the use of dual biologics and provides a summary of the literature.

Mepolizumab in children and adolescents with severe eosinophilic asthma not eligible for omalizumab: a single Center experience.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab is an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody shown to reduce asthma exacerbations in adults and adolescents with severe eosinophilic asthma. AIM: To assess the impact of mepolizumab on children and adolescents over 12 months by examining steroid usage, asthma-related hospitalizations, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentration (FeNO), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), mid expiratory flow (FEF25-75%), and blood eosinophil count. METHODS: Retrospective analysis performed between October 2015 and December 2022. Data was reviewed 12 months before and after commencing mepolizumab. Mepolizumab was offered if the patient had severe eosinophilic asthma and were unresponsive to or ineligible for omalizumab. RESULTS: Sixteen participants (age 7-17, 8 males, 8 females) received subcutaneous mepolizumab monthly with no serious adverse reactions. Incidence of hospital admissions fell significantly (IRR 0.33, p = 0.007). Among the 11 patients receiving daily oral corticosteroids, 3 were weaned off daily oral steroids and 3 patients' daily dose was significantly reduced (mean Δ-0.095 ± 0.071 mg/kg, p = 0.0012). Eosinophil count was decreased (mean Δ-0.85 x 109/L, p < 0.001). There was no significant change in mean overall steroid burden per patient (mean Δ-1445.63 ± 1603.18 mg, p = 0.10), ACT scores (mean Δ2.88 ± 6.71, p = 0.17), FEV1 z-scores (mean Δ-0.99 ± 1.88, p = 0.053), FEF25-75% z-scores (mean Δ-0.65 ± 1.61, p = 0.13), FeNO (mean Δ-20.09 ± 80.86, p = 0.34), or number of courses of oral steroids given for asthma attacks (IRR 0.71, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Among children and adolescents with severe eosinophilic asthma ineligible for or not responsive to omalizumab, mepolizumab therapy exhibited significant reduction in rate of asthma-related hospitalizations and significant decrease in daily steroid dosage.