Efficacy and Safety of Reslizumab in Patients with Severe Asthma with Inadequate Response to Omalizumab : A Multicenter, Open-Label Pilot Study

Funding: This study was endorsed by the Asthma Research Program of the Spanish Respiratory Society (PII de Asma de SEPAR) supported by a grant from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.Background: Patients with severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma could qualify for different biologic therapies. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of weight-based intravenous reslizumab dosing in patients who have previously failed therapy with omalizumab. Methods: We carried out a 24-week prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-group, self-controlled study in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who had previously failed to respond to omalizumab. The main objective was to determine whether treatment with reslizumab significantly improved asthma symptoms assessed by the Asthma Control Test (ACT) at week 24. Secondary objectives were to evaluate symptoms at weeks 4 and 12, change in FEV at week 24, and the incidence of severe exacerbations over the study period. Results: Twenty-nine patients (62.1% women, median age, 50.8 years) were included in the study. The median ACT score significantly increased from 13.0 (interquartile range, 8.0-18.0) at baseline to 21.0 (interquartile range, 14.0-24.0) at 24 weeks (P =.002). Only 2 of 29 patients developed at least 1 severe exacerbation during follow-up and none of them required hospitalization. Overall, 15 of 25 patients (60%) were considered as being controlled (ACT score of ≥20 and no exacerbations) at week 24. The percentage of patients who were receiving daily systemic corticosteroids significantly decreased from 72.4% to 52.0% (P =.019). Adverse events were mostly moderate and within the range of previously reported side effects with reslizumab. Conclusion: Reslizumab is an effective and safe option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of omalizumab failure

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with mild airflow limitation: Current knowledge and proposal for future research – A consensus document from six scientific societies

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with high and growing prevalence. Its underdiagnosis and hence under-treatment is a general feature across all countries. This is particularly true for the mild or early stages of the disease, when symptoms do not yet interfere with daily living activities and both patients and doctors are likely to underestimate the presence of the disease. A diagnosis of COPD requires spirometry in subjects with a history of exposure to known risk factors and symptoms. Postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity <0.7 or less than the lower limit of normal confirms the presence of airflow limitation, the severity of which can be measured by FEV1% predicted: stage 1 defines COPD with mild airflow limitation, which means postbronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% predicted. In recent years, an elegant series of studies has shown that “exclusive reliance on spirometry, in patients with mild airflow limitation, may result in underestimation of clinically important physiologic impairment”. In fact, exercise tolerance, diffusing capacity, and gas exchange can be impaired in subjects at a mild stage of airflow limitation. Furthermore, growing evidence indicates that smokers without overt abnormal spirometry have respiratory symptoms and undergo therapy. This is an essential issue in COPD. In fact, on one hand, airflow limitation, even mild, can unduly limit the patient’s physical activity, with deleterious consequences on quality of life and even survival; on the other hand, particularly in younger subjects, mild airflow limitation might coincide with the early stage of the disease. Therefore, we thought that it was worthwhile to analyze further and discuss this stage of “mild COPD”. To this end, representatives of scientific societies from five European countries have met and developed this document to stimulate the attention of the scientific community on COPD with “mild” airflow limitation. The aim of this document is to highlight some key features of this important concept and help the practicing physician to understand better what is behind “mild” COPD. Future research should address two major issues: first, whether mild airflow limitation represents an early stage of COPD and what the mechanisms underlying the evolution to more severe stages of the disease are; and second, not far removed from the first, whether regular treatment should be considered for COPD patients with mild airflow limitation, either to prevent progression of the disease or to encourage and improve physical activity or both. © 2017 Rossi et al