Comparison of Long-term Response and Remission to Omalizumab and Anti-IL-5/IL-5R Using Different Criteria in a Real-life Cohort of Severe Asthma Patients

Background: Evaluation of biologic therapy response is vital to monitor its effectiveness. Authors have proposed various response criteria including good responder, super-responder, non-responder, and clinical remission.ObjectivesTo ascertain the prevalence of response and clinical remission after long-term treatment (>6 months) of anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics, compare these results with existing criteria, and identify predictors for non-responders and clinical remission.MethodsA multicenter, real-life study involving severe asthma patients in Spain. Various outcomes were assessed to gauge response and clinical remission against established criteria.ResultsThe study included 429 patients, 209 (48.7%) omalizumab, 112 (26.1%) mepolizumab, 19 (4.4%) reslizumab and 89 (20.7%) benralizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 55.3±38.8 months. In the final year of treatment, 218 (50.8%) were super-responders, 173 (40.3%) responders, 38 (8.9%) non-responders, and clinical remission in 116 (27%), without differences among biologics. The short-term non-responders (<6 months) were 25/545 (4.6%). Substantial variations in response and clinical remission were observed when applying different published criteria. Predictors of non-response included higher BMI (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.06–1.23; p<0.001), admissions at ICU (2.69; 1.30–5.56; p=0.01), high count of SAE (1.21; 1.03–1.42; p=0.02) before biologic treatment. High FEV1% (0.96; 0.95–0.98; p<0.001), a high ACT score (0.93; 0.88–0.99; p=0.01) before biologic treatment or NSAID-ERD (0.52; 0.29–0.91; p=0.02) showed strong associations with achieving clinical remission.ConclusionA substantial proportion of severe asthma patients treated long-term with omalizumab or anti-IL5/IL-5Rα achieved a good response. Differences in response criteria highlight the need for harmonization in defining response and clinical remission in biologic therapy to enable meaningful cross-study comparisons. (AU)

Comparison of Long-term Response and Remission to Omalizumab and Anti-IL-5/IL-5R Using Different Criteria in a Real-life Cohort of Severe Asthma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of biologic therapy response is vital to monitor its effectiveness. Authors have proposed various response criteria including good responder, super-responder, non-responder, and clinical remission. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the prevalence of response and clinical remission after long-term treatment (>6 months) of anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics, compare these results with existing criteria, and identify predictors for non-responders and clinical remission. METHODS: A multicenter, real-life study involving severe asthma patients in Spain. Various outcomes were assessed to gauge response and clinical remission against established criteria. RESULTS: The study included 429 patients, 209 (48.7%) omalizumab, 112 (26.1%) mepolizumab, 19 (4.4%) reslizumab and 89 (20.7%) benralizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 55.3±38.8 months. In the final year of treatment, 218 (50.8%) were super-responders, 173 (40.3%) responders, 38 (8.9%) non-responders, and clinical remission in 116 (27%), without differences among biologics. The short-term non-responders (<6 months) were 25/545 (4.6%). Substantial variations in response and clinical remission were observed when applying different published criteria. Predictors of non-response included higher BMI (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23; p<0.001), admissions at ICU (2.69; 1.30-5.56; p=0.01), high count of SAE (1.21; 1.03-1.42; p=0.02) before biologic treatment. High FEV1% (0.96; 0.95-0.98; p<0.001), a high ACT score (0.93; 0.88-0.99; p=0.01) before biologic treatment or NSAID-ERD (0.52; 0.29-0.91; p=0.02) showed strong associations with achieving clinical remission. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of severe asthma patients treated long-term with omalizumab or anti-IL5/IL-5Rα achieved a good response. Differences in response criteria highlight the need for harmonization in defining response and clinical remission in biologic therapy to enable meaningful cross-study comparisons.

Disposition of Work-Related Asthma in a Spanish Asthma Cohort: Comparison of Asthma Severity Between Employed and Retired Workers.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to certain agents in the workplace can trigger occupational asthma or work-exacerbated asthma, both of which come under the heading of work-related asthma (WRA). Understanding the burden that WRA represents can help in the management of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of occupation on asthma in real life and analyze the characteristics of patients with WRA included in an asthma cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study of a cohort of consecutive patients with asthma. A standardized clinical history was completed. Patients were classified as having WRA or non-WRA. All patients underwent respiratory function tests, FeNO test, and methacholine challenge (methacholine concentration that causes a 20% drop in FEV1) at the beginning of the study. They were classified into two groups, depending on their employment status: employed (group 1) or unemployed (group 2). RESULTS: Of the 480 patients included in the cohort, 82 (17%) received the diagnosis of WRA. Fifty-seven patients (70%) were still working. Mean age (SD) was 46 (10.69) years in group 1 and 57 (9.91) years in group 2 (P < .0001). Significant differences were observed in adherence to treatment (64.9% in group 1 vs 88% in group 2; P = .0354) and in severe asthma exacerbations (35.7% in group 1 vs 0% in group 2; P = .0172). No significant differences were observed in the rest of the variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of WRA in specialized asthma units is not negligible. The absence of differences in the severity of asthma, the treatment administered, alterations in lung function, and the number of exacerbations in those working versus not working may support the idea that advice regarding changing jobs should be customized for individual patients.

How reliably can algorithms identify eosinophilic asthma phenotypes using non-invasive biomarkers?

Background and Aims: Asthma is a heterogeneous respiratory disease that encompasses different inflammatory and functional endophenotypes. Many non-invasive biomarkers has been investigated to its pathobiology. Heany et al proposed a clinical algorithm that classifies severe asthmatic patients into likely-eosinophilic phenotypes, based on accessible biomarkers: PBE, current treatment, FeNO, presence of nasal polyps (NP) and age of onset. Materials and Methods: We assessed the concordance between the algorithm proposed by Heany et al. with sputum examination, the gold standard, in 145 asthmatic patients of the MEGA cohort with varying grades of severity. Results: No correlation was found between both classifications 0.025 (CI = 0.013-0.037). Moreover, no relationship was found between sputum eosinophilia and peripheral blood eosinophilia count in the total studied population. Discussion and Conclusion: In conclusion, our results suggest that grouping the biomarkers proposed by Heany et al. are insufficient to diagnose eosinophilic phenotypes in asthmatic patients. Sputum analysis remains the gold standard to assess airway inflammation.

Eosinophils and Chronic Respiratory Diseases in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the role of eosinophils in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are scarce, though available findings suggest a possible association with disease severity. Our study analyzes the relationship between eosinophils and COVID-19, with a focus on disease severity and patients with underlying chronic respiratory diseases. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 3018 subjects attended at two public hospitals in Madrid (Spain) with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from January 31 to April 17, 2020. Patients with eosinophil counts less than 0.02×109/L were considered to have eosinopenia. Individuals with chronic respiratory diseases (n=384) were classified according to their particular underlying condition, i.e., asthma, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, or obstructive sleep apnea. RESULTS: Of the 3018 patients enrolled, 479 were excluded because of lack of information at the time of admission. Of 2539 subjects assessed, 1396 patients presented an eosinophil count performed on admission, revealing eosinopenia in 376 cases (26.93%). Eosinopenia on admission was associated with a higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) or respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) admission (OR:2.21; 95%CI:1.42-3.45; p<0.001) but no increased risk of mortality (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Eosinopenia on admission conferred a higher risk of severe disease (requiring ICU/RICU care), but was not associated with increased mortality. In patients with chronic respiratory diseases who develop COVID-19, age seems to be the main risk factor for progression to severe disease or death.