[Intradural and funicular neurinomas].

G. Guiot,Messimy

1950-11-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

Linda Rogers,Milos Jesenak,Leif Bjermer,Nicola A Hanania,Sven F Seys,Zuzana Diamant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107414

Abstract:The development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting specific components of the pathways relevant to asthma pathophysiology has revolutionized treatment of severe asthma both in adults and children and helped to further unravel the heterogeneity of this disease. However, the availability of multiple agents, often with overlapping eligibility criteria, creates a need for pragmatic guidance for specialists undertaking care of patients with severe asthma. In this review, we provide an overview of the data supporting the clinical efficacy of biologics in distinct asthma phenotypes/endotypes. We also focus on the role of biomarkers and treatable traits, including comorbidities, in the choice of asthma biologics, highlight which treatments have been demonstrated to be steroid sparing in corticosteroid dependent asthma, and provide practical guidance that can drive shared decision making on treatment choice with patients. In addition, we summarize what is known to date regarding long-term safety of these drugs, and lastly, discuss future directions in biologics research.
How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit

Amber N Pepper,Nicola A Hanania,Marc Humbert,Thomas B Casale,Amber N. Pepper,Nicola A. Hanania,Thomas B. Casale

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2020.10.048

2021-03-01

Abstract:Five biologic medications are approved in the United States for the treatment of asthma that is not well controlled with other therapies. All target asthma with elevated type 2 inflammatory markers, such as elevated eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, or total and specific IgE. Asthma severity, phenotype, age, biomarkers, treatment goals/outcomes, comorbid conditions, safety, and cost should all help guide the initial biologic choice. In addition, a shared decision-making process with the patient is needed to optimize adherence, with special attention to patient preference regarding outcomes, safety concerns, and medication administration options. After a biologic agent is initiated, sufficient time is needed to monitor efficacy and response. For patients who do not respond favorably, patient-, disease-, and medication-related factors should be considered and remedied, if possible. Persistent suboptimal responders necessitate a reexamination of asthma phenotype, biomarkers, and the suspected immune response pathways. For some patients, a change in biologic therapy or other therapeutic options may be warranted. In this review, we examine the clinical approach for choosing an initial biologic for the treatment of asthma, the assessment of response to biologics, and the process of troubleshooting and adjusting biologic treatment for those patients with suboptimal responses.
The Current State of Biologic Therapies for Treatment of Refractory Asthma

Matthew Mavissakalian,Sean Brady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-020-08776-8

2020-01-24

Abstract:Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with the immune processes behind the chronic inflammation underlying this disorder differing between the various identified asthma endotypes. In addition to heterogeneity in underlying disease pathophysiology, asthmatics fall across a broad spectrum of disease severity and can vary greatly in their response to convention asthma therapies. A small percentage of patients with severe persistent asthma will remain uncontrolled despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and a long-acting beta-agonist. Less than two decades ago, there were few options for these treatment-refractory asthmatics beyond chronic systemic steroids, with their myriad of treatment-limiting side effects. However, in recent years, there have been a growing number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved biologic medications with targets that include immunoglobulin E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5), the IL-5 receptor and the IL-4/IL-13 receptor-alpha subunit. The current FDA-approved biologics for severe persistent asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab. These monoclonal antibodies have been shown to improve asthma control, decrease asthma exacerbations and decrease glucocorticoid dependence in certain subsets of patients with asthma. The optimal biologic for treatment of severe asthma varies from patient to patient, depending on the underlying pathophysiology of the patient's disease. For each of these medications, there are certain biomarkers that can help predict whether a patient is likely to respond favorably to the medication. This review will discuss the currently approved biologics for severe persistent asthma, including their indications, efficacy and side effects.

immunology,allergy
Promises and challenges of biologics for severe asthma

Ronnie Tan,Mei Fong Liew,Hui Fang Lim,Bernard P Leung,W S Fred Wong,Bernard P. Leung,W.S. Fred Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2020.114012

IF: 6.1

2020-09-01

Biochemical Pharmacology

Abstract:Patients with severe asthma that remain uncontrolled incur significant medical burden and healthcare costs. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous airway disorder with complex pathophysiological mechanisms which can be broadly divided into type 2 (T2)-high and T2-low inflammatory pathways. Recent advances in asthma therapeutics with the advent of biologics have heralded an era of promising targeted therapy in this group of patients. The current available biologics, including anti-IgE mAb, anti-IL-5/IL-5R mAb and anti-IL-4Rα mAb, mainly target patients with an asthma endotype characterised by T2-high inflammation. While they have delivered positive outcomes in terms of reduction in exacerbations, improving lung function and quality of life, as well as reducing the dependence on oral corticosteroids, they have not functioned as the "panacea" as a significant proportion of patients do not respond completely to these targeted therapies. In addition, there is a lack of markers that can predict treatment response and clinicians are guided only by subjective asthma symptom scores. Suboptimal treatment response is common for individual patients. There has also been a dearth of effective targeted therapy for patients with T2-low asthma and treatment options remain limited for these patients. There is a pipeline of newer biologics targeting cytokines that operate at the interface between innate and adaptive immunity (e.g. IL-17A, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), IL-25, IL-33, IL-32 and IL-36γ) with potential of modifying and reducing the severity of asthma. This commentary provides an overview of treatment with the current biologics and highlights the limitations, challenges and unmet needs in clinical management. We also summarise up-and-coming potential targets and therapeutic biologics for severe asthma.

pharmacology & pharmacy
The new biologic drugs: Which children with asthma should get what?

K. Hillson,S. Saglani,A. Bush

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.27218

IF: 4.0899

2024-09-15

Pediatric Pulmonology

Abstract:Novel biologics (targeted antibody therapies) have revolutionized the management of severe childhood asthma. However, it is important that the right biologic is selected for the right patient, and understanding the evidence base for each biologic is crucial. Currently, four biologics (all monoclonal antibodies) are licensed in the UK for the treatment of children with severe asthma ‐ omalizumab (Xolair), mepolizumab (Nucala), and dupilumab (Dupixent) in children aged 6 years and over; and tezepelumab (Tezspire), only in children aged 12 years and over. Tezepelumab is the only licensed biological that may be beneficial in severe asthma without evidence of Type 2 inflammation. All have a good safety profile but varying degrees of clinical efficacy in children, with wide variation in treatment responsiveness between individual patients. When selecting biologics for severe asthma, it is essential to remember the limitations of the current pediatric evidence. At present, there are no results from randomized, head‐to‐head trials of biologics in severe asthma. TREAT is an ongoing trial comparing omalizumab to mepolizumab and will be one of the first to provide such evidence. We must be especially aware of the dangers of extrapolating data from adults to children, because the pathophysiology and role of biomarkers may differ significantly from adult asthma. Given the current level of knowledge, even after treatment has been initiated, children should be regularly reviewed to determine the efficacy of treatment, side‐effect profile and consideration of when treatment with the biologic should be discontinued.

pediatrics,respiratory system
Choosing the right biologic treatment for individual patients with severe asthma - lessons learnt from Picasso

Milan Terl,Zuzana Diamant,Radovan Kosturiak,Milos Jesenak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2024.107766

2024-08-22

Abstract:Severe asthma represents a true challenge for clinicians from two basic perspectives, i.e.: a rational assessment of the underlying endo/phenotype and the subsequent selection of the best fitted (personalized) and effective treatment. Even though asthma is a heterogeneous disease, in the majority of therapy-compliant patients, it is possible to achieve (almost) complete disease control or even remission through conventional and quite uniform step-based pharmacotherapy, even without phenotyping. However, the absence of deeper assessment of individual patients revealed its handicap to its fullest extent during the first years of the new millennium upon the launch of biological therapeutics for patients with the most severe forms of asthma. The introduction of differentially targeted biologics into clinical practice became a challenge in terms of understanding and recognizing the etiopathogenetic heterogeneity of the asthmatic inflammation, pheno/endotyping, and, consequently, to choose the right biologic for the right patient. The answers to the following three questions should lead to correct identification of the dominant pheno/endotype: Is it really (severe) asthma? Is it eosinophilic asthma? If eosinophilic, is it (predominantly) allergen-driven? The identification of the best achievable and relevant alliance between endotypes and phenotypes ("euphenotypes") should be based not only on the assessment of the actual clinical characteristics and laboratory biomarkers, but more importantly, on the evaluation of their development and changes over time. In the current paper, we present a pragmatic three-step approach to severe asthma diagnosis and management.
Management of Uncontrolled Asthma: A Framework for Novel and Legacy Biologic Treatments

Laren D Tan,Nolan Nguyen,Abdullah Alismail,Mario Castro,Laren Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S369836

2022-06-29

Journal of Asthma and Allergy

Abstract:Laren D Tan, 1, 2 Nolan Nguyen, 3 Abdullah Alismail, 2 Mario Castro 4 1 Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA; 2 Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda, CA, USA; 3 Department of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA; 4 Department of Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA Correspondence: Laren D Tan, Email Asthma continues to be a complex respiratory disease to control for many despite optimal standard inhaler therapy. The increased dependence on steroid-sparing biologic treatments in the 21 st century has created a dilemma between identifying the patient's intrinsic biomarkers and their "life markers." With Tezepelumab being the most recent FDA-approved biologic for asthma, it is even more critical for asthma specialists to better understand and establish a framework to determine which biologic would work best for their patients. While cost and payor approvals limit access to certain asthma biologics, medical decisions on which biologic to select should be centered around shared decision-making, the rationale for biologic initiation, and critical biologic education to help achieve successful asthma control. Keywords: severe asthma, Tezepelumab, asthma biologic, shared decision making, asthma Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with varying degrees of airway inflammation and airflow limitation that affects 1–18% of the population in different countries. 1,2 Of those with asthma, refractory disease can range from 5% to 10%. Unfortunately, this group of refractory asthmatics also disproportionately contributes significantly to the overall economic and healthcare burden on the total cost of asthma. 3 To address this disparity and provide best practice evidence-based recommendations and guidelines, NAEPP (National Asthma Education and Prevention Program) and GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) were formed. 2,4,5 With the help of NAEPP and GINA, most asthmatics are well controlled with conventional pharmacotherapy of inhaled corticosteroids combined with long or short-acting B-agonist bronchodilators (LABA or SABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists with the occasional addition of leukotriene antagonists (LTRAs). However, for those with severe refractory disease, these current modalities are not sufficient to control their asthma. Gaps in medical knowledge, deficiencies in the identification of severe asthma, barriers to clinical restraints in coordination, integration, resources, and access to bronchial thermoplasty (BT) as well as advanced treatments in legacy and novel asthma biologics (ie, Tezepulumab) 6 could all be contributing factors as to why control of severe asthmatics continues to be problematic. Therefore, a framework for understanding, discussing, and determining the best treatment options is critical, especially for biologics. While there are many new biologics in the pipeline for asthma, the same framework should hold true for other novel biologics as they become available. In addition to the framework, in this paper, we will review the prospects for treating severe refractory asthmatics with a novel biologic agent (ie, Tezepelumab). Asthma historically was thought to manifest as two major phenotypes, non-atopic or "non-allergic" asthma, and atopic or "allergic" asthma. Most prevalent was early-onset atopic asthma which was typically seen during childhood and into young adulthood. Evidence has shown that non-atopic asthma predominates among older age groups. 7 Additional asthma phenotypes were also identified based on age of onset, asthma triggers, disease severity, exacerbations, and airflow limitation. 8 A significant limitation with this approach arose because distinguishing groups based on observation was complex, overlap exists between clinical phenotypes and it does not address the underlying pathobiology. While the historical idiom of "what you see is what you get" is great to help identify the variable clinical presentations of asthmatics (phenotype), it still falls short of defining the specific mechanistic pathway (endotype) that leads to the phenotypic presentation. Understanding these mechanistic pathways is critical to asthma management due to their therapeutic and prognostic implications. 9 Endotyping in asthma was once deep-rooted in understanding that CD4+ T-cell responses are heterogenous and promote many inflammatory pathways. More importantly, within the subsets of T-helper1 (Th1) and T-helper2 (Th2) subpopulations, it was once accepted that Th2 cells were the principal driver of airway inflammation by generating interleukins (IL) -Abstract Truncated-

immunology,allergy,respiratory system
Type 2 severe asthma: pathophysiology and treatment with biologics

Corrado Pelaia,James Melhorn,Timothy Sc Hinks,Simon Couillard,Alessandro Vatrella,Girolamo Pelaia,Ian D Pavord

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2024.2380072

Abstract:Introduction: The hallmark of most patients with severe asthma is type 2 inflammation, driven by innate and adaptive immune responses leading to either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic infiltration of airways. The cellular and molecular pathways underlying severe type 2 asthma can be successfully targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: This review article provides a concise overview of the pathophysiology of type 2 asthma, followed by an updated appraisal of the mechanisms of action and therapeutic efficacy of currently available biologic treatments used for management of severe type 2 asthma. Therefore, all reported information arises from a wide literature search performed on PubMed. Expert opinion: The main result of the recent advances in the field of anti-asthma biologic therapies is the implementation of a personalized medicine approach, aimed to achieve clinical remission of severe asthma. Today this accomplishment is made possible by the right choice of the most beneficial biologic drug for the pathologic traits characterizing each patient, including type 2 severe asthma and its comorbidities.
The emergence of new biologics for severe asthma

Katrien AB Eger,Elisabeth H Bel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2019.05.005

IF: 4.768

2019-06-01

Current Opinion in Pharmacology

Abstract:Patients with severe asthma experience severe symptoms and frequent exacerbations despite intensive treatment with inhaled and oral glucocorticoids. Biologics for severe asthma aim to reduce asthma-related and glucocorticoid-induced morbidity. Recently, new biologics targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-5 receptor and IL-4/IL-13, which are all cytokines involved in so-called type 2 airway inflammation, were approved for severe asthma. They show a reduction in exacerbation rate and an oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect. Studies with upstream biologics targeting alarmin cytokines such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and IL-33 are underway, and newly designed bispecific antibodies targeting more than one pathway are in early phases of development. Such pathway-targeted add-on treatments will soon become standard of care for all patients with severe asthma.

pharmacology & pharmacy
From Biomarkers to Biologics

Chun-Yu Chen,Kang-Hsi Wu,Bei-Cyuan Guo,Wen-Ya Lin,Yu-Jun Chang,Chih-Wei Wei,Mao-Jen Lin,Han-Ping Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25010182

IF: 5.6

2023-12-22

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Abstract:Severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous clinical condition presented as chronic inflammation of the airways. Conventional treatments are mainly focused on symptom control; however, there has been a shift towards personalized medicine. Identification of different phenotypes driven by complex pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes), especially those driven by type-2 (T2) inflammation, has led to improved treatment outcomes. Combining biomarkers with T2-targeting monoclonal antibodies is crucial for developing personalized treatment strategies. Several biological agents, including anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin/interleukin-4, have been approved for the treatment of severe asthma. These biological therapies have demonstrated efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, lowering eosinophil count, improving lung function, diminishing oral corticosteroid use, and improving the quality of life in selected patients. Severe asthma management is undergoing a profound transformation with the introduction of ongoing and future biological therapies. The availability of novel treatment options has facilitated the adoption of phenotype/endotype-specific approaches and disappearance of generic interventions. The transition towards precision medicine plays a crucial role in meticulously addressing the individual traits of asthma pathobiology. An era of tailored strategies has emerged, allowing for the successful targeting of immune-inflammatory responses that underlie uncontrolled T2-high asthma. These personalized approaches hold great promise for improving the overall efficacy and outcomes in the management of severe asthma. This article comprehensively reviews currently available biological agents and biomarkers for treating severe asthma. With the expanding repertoire of therapeutic options, it is becoming increasingly crucial to comprehend the influencing factors, understand the pathogenesis, and track treatment progress in severe asthma.

biochemistry & molecular biology,chemistry, multidisciplinary
Phenotyping of Severe Asthma in the Era of Broad-acting Anti-asthma Biologics

Arnaud Bourdin,Guy Brusselle,Simon Couillard,Merritt L. Fajt,Liam G. Heaney,Elliot Israel,P. Jane McDowell,Andrew Menzies-Gow,Neil Martin,Patrick D. Mitchell,Nayia Petousi,Santiago Quirce,Florence Schleich,Ian D. Pavord

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.01.023

IF: 11.022

2024-01-28

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice

Abstract:Severe asthma is associated with significant morbidity and mortality despite maximal use of inhaled corticosteroids and additional controller medications, and has a high economic burden. Biologic therapies are recommended for the management of severe, uncontrolled asthma to help prevent exacerbations and to improve symptoms and health-related quality of life. Effective management of severe asthma requires consideration of clinical heterogeneity that is driven by varying clinical and inflammatory phenotypes, which are reflective of distinct underlying disease mechanisms. Phenotyping patients using a combination of clinical characteristics such as age of onset or comorbidities and biomarker profiles, including blood eosinophil counts, and levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide and serum total immunoglobulin E, is important for the differential diagnosis of asthma. Additionally, phenotyping is beneficial for risk assessment, selection of treatment, and monitoring of treatment response in patients with asthma. This review describes the clinical and inflammatory phenotypes of asthma, provides an overview of biomarkers routinely used in clinical practice and those that have recently been explored for phenotyping, and aims to assess the value of phenotyping in severe asthma management in the current era of biologics.

immunology,allergy
Biologics in Asthma: A Molecular Perspective to Precision Medicine

Brittany Salter,Paige Lacy,Manali Mukherjee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.793409

IF: 5.6

2022-01-19

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Recent developments in therapeutic strategies have provided alternatives to corticosteroids as the cornerstone treatment for managing airway inflammation in asthma. The past two decades have witnessed a tremendous boost in the development of anti-cytokine monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the management of severe asthma. Novel biologics that target eosinophilic inflammation (or type 2, T2 inflammation) have been the most successful at treating asthma symptoms, though there are a few in the drug development pipeline for treating non-eosinophilic or T2-low asthma. There has been significant improvement in clinical outcomes for asthmatics treated with currently available monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E, anti-interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α subunit, anti-IL-5, anti-IL-5Rα, anti-IL-6, anti-IL-33, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). Despite these initiatives in precision medicine for asthma therapy, a significant disease burden remains, as evident from modest reduction of exacerbation rates, i.e., approximately 40–60%. There are numerous studies that highlight predictors of good responses to these biologics, but few have focused on those who fail to respond adequately despite targeted treatment. Phenotyping asthmatics based on blood eosinophils is proving to be inadequate for choosing the right drug for the right patient. It is therefore pertinent to understand the underlying immunology, and perhaps, carry out immune endotyping of patients before prescribing appropriate drugs. This review summarizes the immunology of asthma, the cytokines or receptors currently targeted, the possible mechanisms of sub-optimal responses, and the importance of determining the immune make-up of individual patients prior to prescribing mAb therapy, in the age of precision medicine for asthma.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Asthma and the Biologics Revolution, Part 1: Here and Now

Babak Aberumand,Anne K. Ellis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40521-019-00232-z

2019-11-07

Current Treatment Options in Allergy

Abstract:Purpose of This ReviewTo highlight the evidence behind the various approved biologics indicated for asthma along with their specific targets in the inflammatory cascade and the role they serve in the management of allergic asthma.Recent FindingsThe mainstay of asthma management for the majority of asthmatics is inhaled corticosteroids with or without long-acting beta-agonists and/or leukotriene modifiers and/or tiotropium. However, in the small group of individuals with severe asthma uncontrolled with conventional therapy, biologics have emerged as an effective therapeutic option.SummaryAsthma is a chronic heterogenous disease affecting both children and adults. In its severe form, asthma is associated with significant morbidity and mortality along with increased healthcare utilization and costs. Several biologics targeting different areas of the asthmatic inflammatory cascade have been approved and continue to be assessed for the management of severe allergic asthma. Uncovering the pathophysiology of asthma not only has identified potential targets for therapy but also has brought to light the importance of uncovering specific biomarkers that will help aid therapeutic decision-making.

English Else
Asthma and the Biologics Revolution, Part 2: Failures and the Future Potential

Babak Aberumand,Anne K. Ellis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40521-019-00233-y

2019-11-16

Current Treatment Options in Allergy

Abstract:Purpose of this reviewTo highlight the evidence behind the various biologics that are being developed for asthma along with their specific targets in the inflammatory cascade and the potential role they serve in the management of allergic asthma.Recent findingsThe mainstay of asthma management for the majority of asthmatics is inhaled corticosteroids with or without long-acting beta-agonists and/or leukotriene modifiers and/or tiotropium. However, in the small group of individuals with severe asthma uncontrolled with conventional therapy, biologics have emerged as an effective therapeutic option.SummaryAsthma is a chronic heterogenous disease affecting both children and adults. In its severe form, asthma is associated with significant morbidity and mortality along with increased healthcare utilization and costs. Several biologics targeting different areas of the asthmatic inflammatory cascade such as IgE and IL-5 have been approved for the management of severe allergic asthma. Recent advances have helped to further uncover the pathophysiology of asthma which have identified other potential targets for therapy in the moderate-to-severe difficult to treat asthmatic population.

English Else
Stepping down biologics in asthma: is it time to challenge the status quo?

Khurana,S.,Georas,S. N.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01168-2024

IF: 24.3

2024-08-23

European Respiratory Journal

Abstract:Extract Rapid advances in biologic therapy have truly revolutionised the management of severe asthma in the past decade. The efficacy of these drugs has been undeniably demonstrated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies, with reassuring safety data. Many patients with severe asthma have had their lives transformed after starting a biologic, which is an extremely gratifying result. Questions remain, however, about the optimal long-term management of patients with severe asthma treated with biologics. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends assessing response to biologic therapy after 4 months of treatment and to consider switching to a different biologic in patients with partial or no clinical response [1, 2]. In patients with good clinical response and controlled asthma, stepwise reduction in background controller therapy is recommended, starting with maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS).

respiratory system
Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) for Excision of an Ectopic Anterior Mediastinal Intra-Thymic Parathyroid Adenoma.

Dukhabandhu Naik,K. Jebasingh,Ramprasath,G. Roy,M. Paul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/18108.8023

2016-06-01

Abstract:Ectopic anterior mediastinal parathyroid adenoma is a rare cause of Primary Hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Imaging studies such as Technetium-99m ((99m)Tc) sestamibi parathyroid scan along with a Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomogram (SPECT), and contrast enhanced Computerized Tomogram (CT) of the neck and thorax can precisely localize the ectopic mediastinal parathyroid adenoma. We report a 40-year-old gentleman who presented with persistent pain in the right shoulder following trivial trauma. His biochemical investigations showed an elevated serum calcium of 11.6mg% (Normal: 8.3-10.4 mg%) along with an elevated iPTH of 1443 pg/ml (normal: 8-70 pg/ml) which were suggestive of primary hyperparathyroidism. The localization studies revealed an ectopic cystic parathyroid adenoma in the anterior mediastinum that was not accessible from the neck. He underwent a Video Assisted Thoracoscopic (VAT) excision procedure with normalization of serum calcium and an uncomplicated recovery. The VAT approach is a successful minimally invasive technique for mediastinal parathyroidectomy.
Clinical Characteristics of Patients and Factors Associated with Switching Biologics in Asthma

Machiko Matsumoto-Sasaki,Kaoruko Simizu,Masanobu Suzuki,Masaru Suzuki,Hirokazu Kimura,Yuji Nakamaru,Yoichi M Ito,Akihiro Homma,Satoshi Konno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S348513

2022-02-10

Journal of Asthma and Allergy

Abstract:Machiko Matsumoto-Sasaki, 1 Kaoruko Simizu, 1 Masanobu Suzuki, 2 Masaru Suzuki, 1 Hirokazu Kimura, 1 Yuji Nakamaru, 2 Yoichi M Ito, 3 Akihiro Honma, 2 Satoshi Konno 1 1 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan; 2 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan; 3 Data Science Center, Promotion Unit, Institute of Health Science Innovation for Medical Care, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan Correspondence: Kaoruko Simizu, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita 15, Nishi 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Japan, Tel +81-11-706-5911, Fax +81-11-706-7899, Email Purpose: Biologics have been used increasingly for the treatment of severe asthma. However, established guidelines for the selection, switching, or discontinuation of biologics do not exist. We aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of patients with asthma who required switching biologics and the factors associated with switching biologics. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective study of 42 patients with severe asthma treated with biologics at the Hokkaido University Hospital between 23 rd June 2016 and 30 th April 2021, when two biologics were available in Japan. We compared the characteristics of subjects who continued and switched biologics. The time to switch the biologics was assessed by type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, pulmonary function indices, and the presence of comorbidities, including the Japanese Epidemiological Survey of Refractory Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis (JESREC) score and aspirin exacerbated respiratory diseases (AERD), using the Kaplan–Meier method and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Eight and five patients were treated by mepolizumab and benralizumab at baseline, respectively among the 31% (13/42) who switched the biologics. Subjects who required switching biologics were characterized by high blood eosinophil counts, younger age, JESREC scores of 11 points or higher, and AERD. The time taken to switch biologics was significantly shorter in the subgroups with high JESREC scores (≥ 11) or AERD, compared with their counterparts with low JESREC scores or without AERD (both, P < 0.05). JESREC scores of ≥ 11, but not the presence of AERD, were associated with time to switch biologics. Conclusion: The presence of eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis based on JESREC scores of ≥ 11 and younger age were factors associated with switching biologics in asthma. Keywords: aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, asthma, biologics, comorbidities, eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis Biologic therapies have played a significant role in the treatment of severe asthma. 1 "Difficult-to-treat asthma is asthma that is uncontrolled, despite receiving medium or high dose Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatment or requires high dose ICS-LABA treatment to maintain adequate symptom control and reduce exacerbations, which incorrect inhalation technique, poor adherence to the medication, smoking, comorbidities, or misdiagnosis may concern. Severe asthma is a subset of difficult-to-treat asthma that is uncontrolled despite adherence to maximal optimal therapy and treatment of contributory factors or worsens when the dosage of the medication is decreased. 2,3 Poor asthma control is defined as an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score of 19 or less. 4 Symptom control, frequency of exacerbations, and pulmonary function should be evaluated in the course of treatment including biologics. 2 In Japan, four types of biologics are currently in use. 5 There are no established guidelines for the use of different biologics, 2,5–7 although some reports suggest that type 2 markers such as blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and IgE could act as eligibility criteria for selecting biologic therapy. Practically, there is substantial overlap in the proposed indications for biologics, which leaves the ultimate decision at the discretion of the treating clinician. Thus, some patients have to discontinue, which requires amelioration to achieve optimal treatment. The definitions of responders have been applied to evaluate the efficacy of biologics. 8 However, these definitions have not been validated. Eger et al defined patients who achieved ≥50% reduction in exacerbations as responders and ≥50% reduction in prednisolone dose as a response to bio -Abstract Truncated-

immunology,allergy,respiratory system
Biologics or immunotherapeutics for asthma?

Hock L Tay,Paul S Foster,Hock L. Tay,Paul S. Foster

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104782

IF: 10.334

2020-08-01

Pharmacological Research

Abstract:Asthma is now recognised as a heterogenous inflammatory disease of the lung based on cellular infiltrates and transcriptional profiles of blood and airway cells. Four distinct subgroups have been defined, eosinophilic (T2), neutrophilic (T1), mixed eosinophilic/neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic. Patients can also be stratified at a molecular level into T2-high, T2-low and/or T1 based on their gene signatures. Current treatments for asthma have been centred on administration of steroids and/or bronchodilators for the relief of bronchoconstriction and inflammation. These treatments are not always effective and often have limited efficacy during exacerbations. Eosinophil expansion and homing to tissues, bronchoconstriction, IgE production and mucus hypersecretion (hallmark features of asthma) are regulated by the Type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, the latter of which can induce the expression of the eosinophil chemotactic factors CCL11 and CCL24. A number of new generation biologics (monoclonal antibodies) targeting pathways regulated by the T2 cytokines IL-5 and IL-4/13 (IL-4 receptor alpha) have yielded effective therapies for eosinophil induced exacerbations of severe asthma. Despite these advances, difficulties still remain in treating all exacerbations, and this may reflect the contribution of other inflammatory cells such as neutrophils to pathogenesis. This review describes the effectiveness of targeting T2 pathways, emerging approaches and identifies the potential next steps for therapeutic intervention.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Biologics in asthma: difficulties and drawbacks

Jean Bousquet,Raphael Chiron,Marc Humbert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1517/14712590802496928

2008-11-06

Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Biologics have become an increasingly important class of therapeutic compounds in a variety of immune and/or inflammatory diseases. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma represent a significant unmet need.METHODS: This review gives some examples of the complex use of biologics in asthma.RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is very difficult to predict the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma and only one monoclonal antibody to date has been found to be effective and approved by both the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for the treatment of difficult allergic asthma. New pathways may prove to be of importance for the development of biologics. Biologics are not devoid of side effects, which can, although not always, be predicted from their mechanism of action. These include hypersensitivity reactions, which need to be better understood to prevent and control them. Finally, biologics should be cost-effective. This review gives some examples of the complex use of biologics in asthma.

medicine, research & experimental,biotechnology & applied microbiology
The mobile phone as an imaging tool in SLE.

D. Armstrong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/RHEUMATOLOGY/KEH286

2004-09-01

Rheumatology

Abstract:

[Intradural and funicular neurinomas].

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit

The Current State of Biologic Therapies for Treatment of Refractory Asthma

Promises and challenges of biologics for severe asthma

The new biologic drugs: Which children with asthma should get what?

Choosing the right biologic treatment for individual patients with severe asthma - lessons learnt from Picasso

Management of Uncontrolled Asthma: A Framework for Novel and Legacy Biologic Treatments

Type 2 severe asthma: pathophysiology and treatment with biologics

The emergence of new biologics for severe asthma

From Biomarkers to Biologics

Phenotyping of Severe Asthma in the Era of Broad-acting Anti-asthma Biologics

Biologics in Asthma: A Molecular Perspective to Precision Medicine

Asthma and the Biologics Revolution, Part 1: Here and Now

Asthma and the Biologics Revolution, Part 2: Failures and the Future Potential

Stepping down biologics in asthma: is it time to challenge the status quo?

Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) for Excision of an Ectopic Anterior Mediastinal Intra-Thymic Parathyroid Adenoma.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients and Factors Associated with Switching Biologics in Asthma

Biologics or immunotherapeutics for asthma?

Biologics in asthma: difficulties and drawbacks

The mobile phone as an imaging tool in SLE.