Analysis of response of severe eosinophilic asthmatic patients to benralizumab

Introduction Clinical trials and real-life studies have been published showing effectiveness of benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthmatic patients. The aim of the present study is to describe super-responders to benralizumab in a series of 79 patients who completed at least 1 year of treatment, and to compare super-responders with non super-responders. Methods This is a multicenter study of the Register of Severe Asthma of the Region of Murcia (RE-ASGRAMUR) Group performed in eight hospitals under the conditions of routine clinical practice. Patients with zero exacerbations and no oral corticosteroid therapy for asthma were considered super-responders. We analyzed clinical, functional, and inflammatory parameters of selected patients. Results In all, 50 of the 79 patients (63%) met the super-responder criteria. In addition, 36% of the patients (26/71) were considered as complete responders to treatment (super--responder + Asthma Control Test [ACT] ≥ 20 + forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] ≥ 80%). The super--responders were significantly older in age (P = 0.0029), had higher eosinophils count (P = 0.0423), higher proportion of nasal polyps (P = 0.036), and they had less severe disease at baseline. After 1 year of treatment, the super-responders had higher levels of ACT questionnaire (23 vs 19, P = 0.0007) and better percentage of FEV1 (83 vs 75, P = 0.0359). Conclusion Almost two of the three patients treated with benralizumab were super--responders after 1 year of treatment and 36% had a complete response. Super-responders were associated with older age, higher eosinophils count, had nasal polyposis as comorbidity, and had less severe disease at baseline. This data illustrated the good real-life response of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma to the treatment with benralizumab (AU)

Profilin sensitisation in a Mediterranean population.

BACKGROUND: Sensitisation to pan-allergens has become an interesting tool for the study of the allergenic profile of different populations. Profilins are one of the most common pan-allergens to be studied because they are responsible for a large number of sensitisations and are clearly related to cross-reactivity and co-sensitisation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the profile of sensitisation to profilins and to correlate it with sensitisation to foods and pollens. METHODS: Six hundred and fifty-four consecutive patients were skin-prick tested with a battery of common allergens including pollens, epithelia, mites and moulds and profilin and divided into three groups depending on their sensitisation profile (non-atopic, atopic with pollinosis and atopic without pollinosis). Patients with symptoms were challenged and diagnosed with the offending food extracts. Profilin sensitisation was identified and analysed in detail. RESULTS: According to the classification of the population, the prevalence of profilin sensitisation was estimated at 2.9% in patients suffering respiratory allergy, 4.2% in atopic patients, and 5.9% in pollen-sensitised individuals. Positive association was observed between pollen (except Cupressus and olive) and profilin but not with moulds, mites or epithelia. With respect to foods, positive association was only observed between profilin and melon sensitisation. Lastly, in terms of symptoms, positive association was only observed between profilin sensitisation and OAS. CONCLUSION: Profilin sensitisation seems to be a marker of pollen-related poly-sensitisation in our area. Pan-allergen diagnosis seems to be an essential tool for developing and improving selection of the correct treatment for allergic patients.

[The behavior of FEV1 and PEFR in the free running test for the detection of exercise-induced asthma in childhood]. / Comportamiento del FEV1 y del PEFR en la prueba de carrera libre para la detección del asma inducida por ejercicio en la infancia.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to study the behavior and validity of PEFR and FEV1 in the free-running exercise test in order to diagnose exercise-induced asthma during childhood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 30 asthmatic children and 30 healthy children as controls. A provocation test was performed by means of free-running exercise in an indoor sports center. Environmental temperature and humidity were equal in both groups. Forced breathing spirometry and the "Mini-Wright peak flow meter" test were recorded before and two, five, fifteen and twenty minutes after the exercise challenge. The spirometric values representing two standard deviations below the mean for each variable studied in the control group were considered as reference values (FEV1 > or = 83.5% and PEFR > or = 81.5%). RESULTS: There was a decrease in FEV1 in 17 asthmatic children (56.7%) and a decrease in PEFR occurred in 14 children (46.7%). No statistically significant differences were found in either test. Specificity was 100% for FEV1 and 96.7% for PEFR. The greatest decrease in both spirometric parameters occurred at five minutes. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, in a free-running provocation test if we maintain previously controlled environmental conditions and exercise intensity "forced breathing spirometry" and "Mini-Wright peak flow" can be used interchangeably in order to diagnose exercise-induced asthma.

Exercise-induced asthma in children: a comparative study of free and treadmill running.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is one of the most common precipitating factors of acute asthmatic crises in childhood. Although it has been described as more frequent among children, this is probably due to their more abundant physical activity. Nevertheless, it also occurs at other ages. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess possible differences in postexercise spirometry after treadmill and free running provocation tests. METHODS: We compared the results obtained in a treadmill test performed by 30 asthmatic children and 30 healthy children with the results obtained with these same children in a free running test, keeping similar environmental conditions (temperature and humidity), exercise intensity (assessed by heart rate), and airway status at the time of the test. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of the patients had positive treadmill tests and 63.3% had positive free running tests. For the spirometric parameters studied, there were no significant differences in the percent decrease in postexercise performance after either of the provocation tests. For FEV1, which is the most sensitive diagnostic parameter, the sensitivity was 53.3% in treadmill running and 56.7% in free running, with a specificity of 100% in both tests. CONCLUSIONS: If environmental conditions, exercise intensity, and airway status are controlled at the time of the test, treadmill and free running can be used indistinctly as asthma-inducing exercises.