Dataset Information

Innovative treatments for severe refractory asthma: how to choose the right option for the right patient?

ABSTRACT: The increasing understanding of the molecular biology and the etiopathogenetic mechanisms of asthma helps in identification of numerous phenotypes and endotypes, particularly for severe refractory asthma. For a decade, the only available biologic therapy that met the unmet needs of a specific group of patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma has been omalizumab. Recently, new biologic therapies with different mechanisms of action and targets have been approved for marketing, such as mepolizumab. Other promising drugs will be available in the coming years, such as reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and lebrikizumab. Moreover, since 2010, bronchial thermoplasty has been successfully introduced for a limited number of patients. This is a nonpharmacologic endoscopic procedure which is considered a promising therapy, even though several aspects still need to be clarified. Despite the increasing availability of new therapies, one of the major problems of each treatment is still the identification of the most suitable patients. This sudden abundance of therapeutic options, sometimes partially overlapping with each other, increases the importance to identify new biomarkers useful to guide the clinician in selecting the most appropriate patients and treatments, without forgetting the drug-economic aspects seen in elevated direct cost of new therapies. The aim of this review is, therefore, to update the clinician on the state of the art of therapies available for refractory asthma and, above all, to give useful directions that will help understand the different choices that sometimes partially overlap and to dispel the possible doubts that still exist.

SUBMITTER: Menzella F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5587160 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Innovative treatments for severe refractory asthma: how to choose the right option for the right patient?

Menzella Francesco F Galeone Carla C Bertolini Francesca F Castagnetti Claudia C Facciolongo Nicola N

Journal of asthma and allergy 20170830

The increasing understanding of the molecular biology and the etiopathogenetic mechanisms of asthma helps in identification of numerous phenotypes and endotypes, particularly for severe refractory asthma. For a decade, the only available biologic therapy that met the unmet needs of a specific group of patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma has been omalizumab. Recently, new biologic therapies with different mechanisms of action and targets have been approved for marketing, such as mep ...[more]

PMID: 28919788

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers' specialty and experience.MethodsWe conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared.ResultsTwo hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05).ConclusionsUncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.

Project description:BackgroundMast cells are present in the airways of patients who have severe asthma despite glucocorticoid treatment; these cells are associated with disease characteristics including poor quality of life and inadequate asthma control. Stem cell factor and its receptor, KIT, are central to mast-cell homeostasis. We conducted a proof-of-principle trial to evaluate the effect of imatinib, a KIT inhibitor, on airway hyperresponsiveness, a physiological marker of severe asthma, as well as on airway mast-cell numbers and activation in patients with severe asthma.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week trial of imatinib in patients with poorly controlled severe asthma who had airway hyperresponsiveness despite receiving maximal medical therapy. The primary end point was the change in airway hyperresponsiveness, measured as the concentration of methacholine required to decrease the forced expiratory volume in 1 second by 20% (PC20). Patients also underwent bronchoscopy.ResultsAmong the 62 patients who underwent randomization, imatinib treatment reduced airway hyperresponsiveness to a greater extent than did placebo. At 6 months, the methacholine PC20 increased by a mean (±SD) of 1.73±0.60 doubling doses in the imatinib group, as compared with 1.07±0.60 doubling doses in the placebo group (P=0.048). Imatinib also reduced levels of serum tryptase, a marker of mast-cell activation, to a greater extent than did placebo (decrease of 2.02±2.32 vs. 0.56±1.39 ng per milliliter, P=0.02). Airway mast-cell counts declined in both groups. Muscle cramps and hypophosphatemia were more common in the imatinib group than in the placebo group.ConclusionsIn patients with severe asthma, imatinib decreased airway hyperresponsiveness, mast-cell counts, and tryptase release. These results suggest that KIT-dependent processes and mast cells contribute to the pathobiologic basis of severe asthma. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01097694 .).

Dataset Information

Innovative treatments for severe refractory asthma: how to choose the right option for the right patient?

Publications

Innovative treatments for severe refractory asthma: how to choose the right option for the right patient?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets