Managing Patients with Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Statement from the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC).

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) encompasses a heterogeneous and complex group of different subtypes within the wider group of hypereosinophilic disorders. Despite increasing research interest, several unmet needs in terms of disease identification, pathobiology, phenotyping, and personalized treatment remain to be addressed. Also, the prospective burden of non-malignant HES and, more in general, HE disorders is currently unknown. On a practical note, shortening the diagnostic delay and the time to an appropriate treatment approach probably represents the most urgent issue, even in light of the great impact of HES on the quality of life of affected patients. The present document represents the first action that the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) has finalized within a wider project aiming to establish a collaborative national network on HES (InHES-Italian Network on HES) for patients and physicians. The first step of the project could not but focus on defining a common language as well as sharing with all of the medical community an update on the most recent advances in the field. In fact, the existing literature has been carefully reviewed in order to critically integrate the different views on the topic and derive practical recommendations on disease identification and treatment approaches.

Sustained Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Naïve and Biologics-Experienced Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Patients: Results from the ANANKE Study.

Purpose: Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients often present overlapping inflammatory features rendering them eligible for multiple biologic therapies; switching biologic treatment is a strategy adopted to optimize asthma control when patients show partial or no response to previous biologics. Patients and Methods: ANANKE is a retrospective, multicenter Italian study (NCT04272463). Here, we outline the characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes in naïve-to-biologics and biologics-experienced patients treated with benralizumab for up to 96 weeks. Bio-experienced patients were split into omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets according to the type of biologic previously used. Results: A total of 124 (76.5%) naïve and 38 (23.5%) bio-experienced patients were evaluated at index date; 13 patients (34.2%) switched from mepolizumab, 21 patients (55.3%) switched from omalizumab, and four patients (10.5%) received both biologics. The mepolizumab subset was characterized by the longest SEA duration (median of 4.6 years), the highest prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) (76.5%), and the greatest oral corticosteroid (OCS) daily dosage (median of 25 mg prednisone equivalent). The omalizumab group showed the highest severe annual exacerbation rate (AER) (1.70). At 96 weeks, treatment with benralizumab reduced any and severe AER by more than 87% and 94%, respectively, across all groups. Lung function was overall preserved, with major improvements observed in the mepolizumab group, which also revealed a 100% drop of the median OCS dose. Asthma Control Test (ACT) score improved in the naïve group while its increment was more variable in bio-experienced patients; among these, a marked difference was noticed between omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets (median ACT score of 23.5 and 18, respectively). Conclusion: Benralizumab promotes durable and profound clinical benefits in naïve and bio-experienced groups, indicating that a nearly complete depletion of eosinophils is highly beneficial in the control of SEA, independently of previous biologic use.

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.