Severe asthma and rhinosinusitis represent frequent comorbidities, complicating the overall management of the disease. Both asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) can be differentiated into endotypes: those with type 2 eosinophilic inflammation and those with a non-type 2 inflammation. A correct definition of phenotype/endotype for these diseases is crucial, taking into account the availability of novel biological therapies. Even though patients suffering from type 2 severe asthma—with or without CRS with nasal polyps—significantly benefit from treatment with biologics, the existence of different levels of patient response has been clearly demonstrated. In fact, in clinical practice, it is a common experience that patients reach a good clinical response for asthma symptoms, but not for CRS. At first glance, a reason for this could be that although asthma and CRS can coexist in the same patient, they can manifest with different degrees of severity; therefore, efficacy may not be equally achieved. Many questions regarding responders and nonresponders, predictors of response, and residual disease after blocking type 2 pathways are still unanswered. In this review, we discuss whether treatment with biological agents is equally effective in controlling both asthma and sinonasal symptoms in patients in which asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps coexist.
Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a vasculitis characterized by multisystemic manifestations including asthma. Mepolizumab (300 mg/4 weeks) has recently been approved for EGPA. However, real-life data are scarce and report experiences with high doses of mepolizumab intravenously administered (750 mg/4 weeks). The aim of our study was to investigate in a real-life setting whether mepolizumab in EGPA patients at low doses would enable us 1) to control asthma symptoms, 2) to obtain oral corticosteroids (OCS) and/or immunosuppressors tapering and 3) to maintain clinical remission and avoid disease relapses. Mepolizumab (100 mg/4 weeks) was subcutaneously administered for 12 months in 18 EGPA patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. Symptoms, annual asthma exacerbation rates, OCS-sparing effects, lung function and eosinophil activation markers were monitored. The proportion of patients with clinical remission or relapse was also evaluated in month 12. A significant decrease in the annual rate of asthma exacerbations in association with significant changes in asthma control were observed. Specifically, 66.6% of the patients experienced no exacerbations during the mepolizumab treatment. Most patients (77.7%) were able to reduce the daily OCS dose by at least 50%. Four patients also stopped cyclosporine A during the study period. No EGPA relapse was observed and a large majority of the patients achieved clinical remission (94.3%). Clinical benefits were paralleled by reduction in blood eosinophils and serum levels of eosinophil activation markers. Low-dose mepolizumab showed clinically relevant benefits in exacerbation rates, asthma symptoms, OCS and immunosuppressive use in EGPA patients. These effects occurred without any EGPA relapse for extrapulmonary manifestations.
Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are inflammatory side effects, which can occur during immune-checkpoint(s) inhibitors (ICIs) therapy. Steroids are the first-line agents to manage irAEs because of their immunosuppressive properties. However, it is still debated whether or when steroids can be administered without abrogating the therapeutic efforts of immunotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 146 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with ICIs. We assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) of patients treated with steroids due to an irAE compared to a no-steroid group. Results: The early treatment with steroid (within the first 30 days from the beginning of immunotherapy) was not related to a shorter PFS (p = 0.077). Interestingly, patients who were treated with steroids after 30 days from the start of immunotherapy had significantly longer PFS (p = 0.017). In a multivariate analysis, treatment with steroids after 30 days was an independent prognostic factor for PFS (HR: 0.59 [95% CI 0.36–0.97], p = 0.037). Conclusions: This retrospective study points out that early systemic steroids administration to manage irAEs might not have a detrimental effect on patient clinical outcome in NSCLC, melanoma and RCC patients.
Drug desensitization (DD) allows transient clinical tolerance to the drug in reactive patients and it is frequently and successfully used in the management of both IgE and non IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions (HRs). The underlying mechanisms behind this process is not well understood. The desensitization procedure is associated with the inhibition of mast cells degranulation and cytokine production, that, is attributable, at least partially, to the abrogation of Ca2+ mobilization; in vitro findings and in vivo mouse models of rapid desensitization show that the organization and spatial distribution of actin is critical for Ca2+ mobilization. Some clinical observations may suggest the induction of a longer memory of tolerance by DD and they raise the suspicion that other cells and mechanisms are involved in DD. Some data are emerging about the modifications of immune responses during DD in patients with previous immediate HRs. In particular, an increase of regulatory cytokines, mainly represented by IL-10, has been shown, and more importantly, the appearance of IL-35 producing T regulatory cells has been described during DD. The release of controlled cellular mediators by mast cells over time and the development of the antigen-specific regulation of adaptive response allow to safely and successfully reach the target dose of a first line drug during DD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.