Background Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of severe adult asthma patients eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult severe asthma patients from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance and hospital admissions. Results In the matched analysis (n=350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p<0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs 20.55% reduction; p=0.023).) There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes, however anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Immune modulation is a key therapeutic tool for allergic diseases and asthma. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific way via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: IgE, IL-5 and IL-4/IL-13. COVID-19 vaccine provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. It works as well through immune modulation. Thus, as there is an obvious interference between these treatment modalities recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) gathered an outstanding expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel was called to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendation on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals.

Background: There is a lack of tools to holistically quantify the response to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in severe uncontrolled asthma (SUA) patients. The aim of this study was to develop a valid score to assist specialists in this clinical context. Methods: The score was developed in 4 subsequent phases: (1) elaboration of the theoretical model of the construct intended to be measured (response to mAbs); (2) definition and selection of items and measurement instruments by Delphi survey; (3) weight assignment of the selected items by multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA) methodology via the 1000Minds software; and (4) face validity assessment of the obtained score. Results: Four core items, with different levels of response for each of them, were selected: “severe exacerbations”, “oral corticosteroid use”, “symptoms” (evaluated by Asthma Control Test: ACT) and “bronchial obstruction” (assessed by FEV1 % theoretical). “Severe exacerbations” and “oral corticosteroid maintenance dose” were weighted most heavily (38% each), followed by “symptoms” (13%) and “FEV1” (11%). Higher scores in the weighted system indicate better response and the range of responses runs from 0 (worsening) to 100 (best possible response). Face validity was high (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.86). Conclusions: The FEOS score (FEV1, Exacerbations, Oral corticosteroids, Symptoms) allows clinicians to quantify response in SUA patients who are being treated with mAbs.