Exacerbations Among Patients With Asthma Are Largely Dependent on the Presence of Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Comorbidities can influence asthma control and promote asthma exacerbations (AEs). However, the impact of multimorbidity in AEs, assessed based on long-term follow-up of patients with asthma of different degrees of severity, has received little attention in real-life conditions. To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and predictors of AEs in patients who had presented at least 1 AE in the previous year in the MEchanism of Genesis and Evolution of Asthma (MEGA) cohort. METHODS: The work-up included a detailed clinical examination, pulmonary function testing, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), blood counts, induced sputum, skin prick-tests, asthma questionnaires, and assessment of multimorbidity. The number of moderate-severe AEs in the preceding year was registered for each patient. RESULTS: The study population comprised 486 patients with asthma (23.7% mild, 35% moderate, 41.3% severe). Disease remained uncontrolled in 41.9%, and 47.3% presented ≥1 moderate-severe AE, with a mean (SD) annual exacerbation rate of 0.47 (0.91) vs 2.11 (2.82) in mild and severe asthma, respectively. Comorbidity was detected in 56.4% (66.6% among those with severe asthma). Bronchiectasis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, atopy, psychiatric illnesses, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were significantly associated with AEs. No associations were found for FeNO, blood eosinophils, or total serum IgE. Sputum eosinophilia and a high-T2 inflammatory pattern were significantly associated with AEs. Multivariable regression analysis showed a significant association with asthma severity, uncontrolled disease, and low prebronchodilator FEV1/FVC. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a high frequency of AE in the MEGA cohort. This was strongly associated with multimorbidity, asthma severity, poor asthma control, airflow obstruction, higher sputum eosinophils, and a very high-T2 inflammatory pattern.

Improvement in Olfaction in Patients With CRSwNP and Severe Asthma Taking Anti-IgE and Anti-IL-5 Biologics: A Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), which is characterized by partial loss of smell (hyposmia) or total loss of smell (anosmia), is commonly associated with asthma and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD). CRSwNP worsens disease severity and quality of life. The objective of this real-world study was to determine whether biological treatments prescribed for severe asthma can improve olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. A further objective was to compare the improvement in in olfaction in N-ERD and non-N-ERD subgroups. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, observational study of 206 patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP undergoing biological treatment (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab). RESULTS: Olfaction improved after treatment with all 4 monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab [35.8%], mepolizumab [35.4%], reslizumab [35.7%], and benralizumab [39.1%]), with no differences between the groups. Olfaction was more likely to improve in patients with atopy, more frequent use of short-course systemic corticosteroids, and larger polyp size. The proportion of patients whose olfaction improved was similar between the N-ERD (37%) and non-N-ERD (35.7%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to compare improvement in olfaction among patients undergoing long-term treatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab for severe asthma and associated CRSwNP. Approximately 4 out of 10 patients reported a subjective improvement in olfaction (with nonsignificant differences between biologic drugs). No differences were found for improved olfaction between the N-ERD and non-N-ERD groups.

Response to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: Definitions, Potential Reasons for Failure, and Therapeutic Options for Suboptimal Response.

Real-life data reveal that more than half of severe asthma patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) do not achieve a complete response. Response to mAbs must be assessed holistically, considering all the clinically meaningful therapeutic goals, not only reduction of exacerbations and oral corticosteroids. There are 2 different ways of measuring the response to mAbs. One, qualitative, classifies patients according to the degree of disease control they have achieved, without explaining how much a given patient improves relative to the baseline (pre-mAb) clinical situation; the other, quantitative, scores the changes occurring after treatment. Both methods are complementary and essential to making clinical decisions on whether to continue treatment. The various potential causes of suboptimal response to mAbs include incorrect identification of the specific T2 pathways, comorbidities that reduce the room for improvement, insufficient dose, autoimmune phenomena, infections, change in the initial inflammatory endotype, and adverse events. Once a suboptimal response has been confirmed, a well-structured and multifaceted assessment of the potential causes of failure should be performed, with emphasis on the resulting inflammatory process of the airway after mAb therapy and the presence of chronic or recurrent infection. This investigation should guide the decision on the best therapeutic approach. The present review aims to help clinicians gain insights into how to measure response to mAbs and proceed in cases of suboptimal response.

Exacerbations Among Patients With Asthma Are Largely Dependent on the Presence of Multimorbidity

Introduction: Comorbidities can influence asthma control and promote asthma exacerbations (AEs). However, the impact of multimorbidity in AEs, assessed based on long-term follow-up of patients with asthma of different degrees of severity, has received little attention in real-life conditions. Objective: To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and predictors of AEs in patients who had presented at least 1 AE in the previous year in the MEchanism of Genesis and Evolution of Asthma (MEGA) cohort. Methods: The work-up included a detailed clinical examination, pulmonary function testing, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), blood counts, induced sputum, skin prick-tests, asthma questionnaires, and assessment of multimorbidity. The number of moderate-severe AEs in the preceding year was registered for each patient. Results: The study population comprised 486 patients with asthma (23.7% mild, 35% moderate, 41.3% severe). Disease remained uncontrolled in 41.9%, and 47.3% presented ≥1 moderate-severe AE, with a mean (SD) annual exacerbation rate of 0.47 (0.91) vs 2.11 (2.82) in mild and severe asthma, respectively. Comorbidity was detected in 56.4% (66.6% among those with severe asthma). Bronchiectasis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, atopy, psychiatric illnesses, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were significantly associated with AEs. No associations were found for FeNO, blood eosinophils, or total serum IgE. Sputum eosinophilia and a high-T2 inflammatory pattern were significantly associated with AEs. Multivariable regression analysis showed a significant association with asthma severity, uncontrolled disease, and low prebronchodilator FEV1/FVC.Conclusions: Our study revealed a high frequency of AE in the MEGA cohort. This was strongly associated with multimorbidity, asthma severity, poor asthma control, airflow obstruction, higher sputum eosinophils, and a very high-T2 inflammatory pattern (AU)

Response to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: Definitions, Potential Reasons for Failure, and Therapeutic Options for Suboptimal Response

Real-life data reveal that more than half of severe asthma patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) do not achieve a complete response. Response to mAbs must be assessed holistically, considering all the clinically meaningful therapeutic goals, not only reduction of exacerbations and oral corticosteroids. There are 2 different ways of measuring the response to mAbs. One, qualitative, classifies patients according to the degree of disease control they have achieved, without explaining how much a given patient improves relative to the baseline (pre-mAb) clinical situation; the other, quantitative, scores the changes occurring after treatment. Both methods are complementary and essential to making clinical decisions on whether to continue treatment. The various potential causes of suboptimal response to mAbs include incorrect identification of the specific T2 pathways, comorbidities that reduce the room for improvement, insufficient dose, autoimmune phenomena, infections, change in the initial inflammatory endotype, and adverse events. Once a suboptimal response has been confirmed, a well-structured and multifaceted assessment of the potential causes of failure should be performed, with emphasis on the resulting inflammatory process of the airway after mAb therapy and the presence of chronic or recurrent infection. This investigation should guide the decision on the best therapeutic approach. The present review aims to help clinicians gain insights into how to measure response to mAbs and proceed in cases of suboptimal response (AU)

Los estudios clínicos en vida real revelan que más de la mitad de los pacientes con asma grave, tratados con anticuerpos monoclonales (mAb), no logran una respuesta completa. La respuesta a los mAbs debe evaluarse de manera integral, considerando todos los objetivos terapéuticos clínicamente significativos y no solo las exacerbaciones o la reducción de corticosteroides orales. Existen dos formas diferentes de medir la respuesta a los mAbs: una, cualitativa, que clasifica a los pacientes según el grado de control de la enfermedad que han logrado, sin explicar cuánto mejora un determinado paciente con respecto a su situación clínica basal (pre-mAb); y la otra, cuantitativa, la cual puntúa los cambios ocurridos después del tratamiento. Ambos métodos son complementarios y claramente esenciales a la hora de tomar decisiones clínicas sobre la continuación del tratamiento con estos fármacos biológicos. Se han descrito varias causas posibles de respuesta subóptima a los mAbs que son: la identificación incorrecta de las vías T2 específicas, las comorbilidades que reducen el margen de mejora, una dosis insuficiente, fenómenos autoinmunes, infecciones, cambio del endotipo inflamatorio inicial y la aparición de efectos adversos. na vez que se ha confirmado una respuesta subóptima, se debe realizar una evaluación bien estructurada y polifacética de estas posibles causas del fracaso, considerando, en particular, el proceso inflamatorio residual de las vías respiratorias tras la terapia con mAb y la presencia de infecciones crónicas o recurrentes. Esta evaluación es la que debe guiar las decisiones sobre el mejor enfoque terapéutico. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo ayudar a los clínicos a obtener un conocimiento más profundo sobre cómo medir la respuesta a los mAbs y cómo proceder con los pacientes que presenten una respuesta subóptima (AU)

Improvement in Olfaction in Patients With CRSwNP and Severe Asthma Taking Anti-IgE and Anti–IL-5 Biologics: A Real-Life Study

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), which is characterized by partial loss of smell (hyposmia) or total loss of smell (anosmia), is commonly associated with asthma and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD). CRSwNP worsens disease severity and quality of life. Objectives: The objective of this real-world study was to determine whether biological treatments prescribed for severe asthma can improve olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. A further objective was to compare the improvement in in olfaction in N-ERD and non–N-ERD subgroups.Methods: We performed a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, observational study of 206 patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP undergoing biological treatment (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab). Results: Olfaction improved after treatment with all 4 monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab [35.8%], mepolizumab [35.4%], reslizumab [35.7%], and benralizumab [39.1%]), with no differences between the groups. Olfaction was more likely to improve in patients with atopy, more frequent use of short-course systemic corticosteroids, and larger polyp size. The proportion of patients whose olfaction improved was similar between the N-ERD (37%) and non–N-ERD (35.7%) groups. Conclusions: This is the first real-world study to compare improvement in olfaction among patients undergoing long-term treatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab for severe asthma and associated CRSwNP. Approximately 4 out of 10 patients reported a subjective improvement in olfaction (with nonsignificant differences between biologic drugs). No differences were found for improved olfaction between the N-ERD and non–N-ERD groups (AU)

La rinosinusitis crónica con poliposis nasal (PN), caracterizada por la pérdida parcial o completa del olfato (hiposmia o anosmia, respectivamente), se asocia frecuentemente a asma y a enfermedad respiratoria exacerbada por ácido acetilsalicílico (EREA), lo cual implica una mayor gravedad y un deterioro adicional de la calidad de vida del paciente. Objetivos: El objetivo principal de este estudio fue determinar, en condiciones de vida real, si los tratamientos biológicos prescritos para asma grave mejoraban el olfato en aquellos pacientes que asociaban PN. Como objetivo secundario, se comparó la mejoría del olfato entre los subgrupos EREA y no EREA. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo un estudio multicéntrico, observacional, retrospectivo, que incluyó 206 pacientes con PN y asma grave en tratamiento con algún biológico (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab oreslizumab). Resultados: Se encontró mejoría del olfato con todos los biológicos: omalizumab (35,8%), mepolizumab (35,4%), reslizumab (35,7%) y benralizumab (39,1%), sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre ellos. Los pacientes con atopia, mayor uso de corticoides sistémicos y mayor tamaño de PN inicial, presentaron mayor mejoría. La proporción de pacientes que presentaron mejoría en el olfato fue similar entre el grupo EREA (37%) y no EREA (35,7%). Conclusiones: Se trata del primer estudio que compara, en condiciones de vida real, la mejoría del olfato en pacientes en tratamiento con omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab o benralizumab indicados por asma grave que asociaban PN. Aproximadamente, 4 de cada 10 pacientes refirió mejoría subjetiva en el olfato (sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los distintos biológicos). No se encontraron diferencias entre el grupo EREA y no EREA (AU)

Eosinophilia Induced by Blocking the IL-4/IL-13 Pathway: Potential Mechanisms and Clinical Outcomes.

Five biological drugs are currently marketed for treatment of uncontrolled severe asthma. They all block type 2 inflammatory pathways by targeting IgE (omalizumab), the IL-5 pathway (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), or the IL-4/IL-13 pathway (dupilumab). Hypereosinophilia has been observed in 4%-25% of patients treated with dupilumab and is transient in most cases, although there have been reports of persistent cases of symptomatic hypereosinophilia consistent with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), eosinophilic pneumonia, eosinophilic vasculitis, and sudden worsening of asthma symptoms. Cases of EGPA have been reported with all biologics, including anti-IL-5 agents, and with leukotriene receptor antagonists in publications or in the EudraVigilance database. In many cases, EGPA appears during tapering of systemic corticosteroids or after switching from an anti-IL-5 biologic to dupilumab, suggesting that systemic corticosteroids or the anti-IL-5 agent were masking vasculitis. This review investigates plausible mechanisms of dupilumab-induced hypereosinophilia and review cases of symptomatic hypereosinophilia associated with dupilumab. Blockade of the IL-4/IL-13 pathway reduces eosinophil migration and accumulation of blood by inhibiting eotaxin-3, VCAM-1, and TARC without simultaneously inhibiting eosinophilopoiesis in bone marrow. When choosing the optimal biologic, it seems necessary to consider the presence of hypereosinophilia (>1500/µL), in which case an anti-IL-5/IL-5R agent is preferable. Furthermore, when switching from an anti-IL-5/5R to an anti-IL-4/13R agent, blood eosinophils and clinical progress should be closely monitored. Nevertheless, dual therapy with anti-IL-5/5R and anti-IL4/IL-13R agents may be needed for optimal control, since both the IL-5 and the IL-4/IL-13 pathways can simultaneously contribute to airway inflammation. This approach can prevent the development of EGPA and other types of symptomatic hypereosinophilia while maintaining control of nasal polyposis. In the near future, it will be possible to use a new generation of biological therapies for the treatment of severe asthma. These act at a higher level of the inflammatory cascade, as is the case of the antialarmins tezepelumab and itepekimab.

Onset of Nut Allergy in a Pediatric Cohort: Clinical and Molecular Patterns in the AFRUSEN Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nut allergy is a growing problem, yet little is known about its onset in children. Objective: To characterize the onset of nut allergy in children in southern Europe. METHODS: The study population comprised consecutive patients up to 14 years of age who visited allergy departments with an initial allergic reaction to peanut, tree nut, or seed. The allergy work-up included a clinical history, food challenge, skin prick testing, determination of whole-extract sIgE, and ImmunoCAP ISAC-112 assay. RESULTS: Of the 271 children included, 260 were first diagnosed with nut allergy at a mean age of 6.5 years and at a mean (SD) of 11.8 (21.2) months after the index reaction. The most common culprit nuts at onset were walnut (36.5%), peanut (28.5%), cashew (10.4%), hazelnut (8.5%), pistachio (5.4%), and almond (5%). Onset of peanut allergy was more frequent in children ≤6 years and walnut in those aged >6 years (P=.032). In 65% of cases, the allergic reaction occurred the first time the patient consumed the nut, and 35% of reactions were anaphylactic. Overall, polysensitization to nuts was detected by skin prick testing in 64.9% of patients, although this rate was lower among walnut-allergic children (54.7%) and peanut-allergic children (54.1%) (P<.0001). Sensitization to 2S albumins was predominant (75%), especially Jug r 1 (52.8%), whereas sensitization to lipid transfer proteins was less relevant (37%). CONCLUSION: In the population we assessed, the onset of nut allergy occurred around 6 years of age, slightly later than that reported in English-speaking countries. Walnut was the main trigger, followed by peanut. 2S albumin storage proteins, especially Jug r 1, were the most relevant allergens. This study will help guide management and may contribute to preventive strategies in pediatric nut allergy.

Serum microRNAs Catalog Asthma Patients by Phenotype.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition of the airways with a complex pathophysiology. Stratification of asthma subtypes into phenotypes and endotypes should move the field forward, making treatment more effective and personalized. Eosinophils are the key inflammatory cells involved in severe eosinophilic asthma. Given the health threat posed by eosinophilic asthma, there is a need for reliable biomarkers to identify affected patients and treat them properly with novel biologics. microRNAs (miRNAs) are a promising diagnostic tool. The aim of this study was to identify serum miRNAs that can phenotype asthma patients. METHODS: Serum miRNAs of patients with eosinophilic asthma (N=40) and patients with noneosinophilic asthma (N=36) were evaluated using next-generation sequencing, specifically miRNAs-seq, and selected miRNAs were validated using RT-qPCR. Pathway enrichment analysis of deregulated miRNAs was performed. RESULTS: Next-generation sequencing revealed 15 miRNAs that were expressed differentially between eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma patients, although no differences were observed in the miRNome between atopic and nonatopic asthma patients. Of the 15 miRNAs expressed differentially between eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma patients, hsa-miR-26a-1-3p and hsa-miR-376a-3p were validated by RT-qPCR. Expression levels of these 2 miRNAs were higher in eosinophilic than in noneosinophilic asthma patients. Furthermore, expression values of hsa-miR-26a-1-3p correlated inversely with peripheral blood eosinophil count, and hsa-miR-376a-3p expression values correlated with FeNO values and the number of exacerbations. Additionally, in silico pathway enrichment analysis revealed that these 2 miRNAs regulate signaling pathways associated with the pathogenesis of asthma. CONCLUSIONS: hsa-miR-26a-1-3p and hsa-miR-376a-3p could be used to differentiate between eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Eosinophilia Induced by Blocking the IL-4/IL-13 Pathway: Potential Mechanisms and Clinical Outcomes

Five biological drugs are currently marketed for treatment of uncontrolled severe asthma. They all block type 2 inflammatory pathways by targeting IgE (omalizumab), the IL-5 pathway (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), or the IL-4/IL-13 pathway (dupilumab). Hypereosinophilia has been observed in 4%-25% of patients treated with dupilumab and is transient in most cases, although there have been reports of persistent cases of symptomatic hypereosinophilia consistent with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), eosinophilic pneumonia, eosinophilic vasculitis, and sudden worsening of asthma symptoms. Cases of EGPA have been reported with all biologics, including anti–IL-5 agents, and with leukotriene receptor antagonists in publications or in the EudraVigilance database. In many cases, EGPA appears during tapering of systemic corticosteroids or after switching from an anti–IL-5 biologic to dupilumab, suggesting that systemic corticosteroids or the anti–IL-5 agent were masking vasculitis. This review investigates plausible mechanisms of dupilumab-induced hypereosinophilia and review cases of symptomatic hypereosinophilia associated with dupilumab. Blockade of the IL-4/IL-13 pathway reduces eosinophil migration and accumulation of blood by inhibiting eotaxin-3, VCAM-1, and TARC without simultaneously inhibiting eosinophilopoiesis in bone marrow. When choosing the optimal biologic, it seems necessary to consider the presence of hypereosinophilia (>1500/μL), in which case an anti–IL-5/IL-5R agent its preferable.Furthermore, when switching from an anti–IL-5/5R to an anti–IL-4/13R agent, blood eosinophils and clinical progress should be closely monitored. Nevertheless, dual therapy with anti–IL-5/5R and anti–IL4/IL-13R agents may be needed for optimal control, since both the IL-5 and the IL-4/IL-13 pathways can simultaneously contribute to airway inflammation. This approach can prevent the development of EGPA and other types of

Actualmente se dispone de cinco fármacos biológicos para el tratamiento del asma grave no controlada de tipo T2. Todos ellos,bloquean las vías inflamatorias de tipo 2, ya sea dirigiéndose a la vía de la IgE (omalizumab), la vía de la IL-5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab,benralizumab) o la vía de la IL-4/13 (dupilumab). Se ha descrito que, entre el 4% y el 25% de los pacientes tratados con dupilumabdesarrollan hipereosinofilia, la cual es benigna y transitoria en la mayoría de los casos, aunque una minoría de pacientes presentan unahipereosinofilia persistente y acompañada de sintomatología clínica que varía desde la granulomatosis eosinofílica con poliangitis (GEPA),a la neumonía eosinofílica, la vasculitis eosinofílica o el empeoramiento repentino de los síntomas del asma. Se han comunicado casosde GEPA con todos los productos biológicos, incluidos los anti-IL-5, y con antagonistas de los receptores de leucotrienos, bien en formade casos clínicos o pequeñas series publicadas, o bien en la base de datos de farmacovigilancia de la Agencia Europea del Medicamento(EMA) EudraVigilance. En muchos de estos pacientes, la GEPA aparece durante la reducción gradual de los esteroides sistémicos o despuésde cambiar de un biológico anti-IL-5 a dupilumab, por fallo terapéutico, lo cual sugiere que los esteroides sistémicos o los anti-IL-5estaban enmascarando la vasculitis. Sin embargo, otros casos no pueden explicarse por la interpretación anterior, pudiendo deducirsecomo una consecuencia directa del uso del biológico. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo corroborar los mecanismos plausibles de lahipereosinofilia inducida por dupilumab y revisar la GEPA y otros casos de hipereosinofilia sintomática presumiblemente asociados conla terapia con dupilumab. El bloqueo de la vía IL-4/IL-13 puede causar una reducción de la migración de eosinófilos y su acumulaciónen sangre periférica, al inhibir la eotaxina-3, VCAM-1 y TARC sin inhibir simultáneamente la eosinofilopoyesis en la