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-

Characterization of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma in Japan: Analysis of Baseline Data from the PROSPECT Study

Effectiveness of Switching Biologics for Severe Asthma Patients in Japan: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

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

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Japanese Patients with Severe Asthma: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Feasibility of Discontinuing Biologics in Severe Asthma: An Algorithmic Approach

Patient Preferences for Attributes of Biologic Treatments in Moderate to Severe Asthma: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study

Disease Burden and Access to Biologic Therapy in Patients with Severe Asthma, 2017–2022: An Analysis of the International Severe Asthma Registry

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

The effectiveness of targeted therapy of various genetically engineered biological drugs in the treatment of bronchial asthma

Biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: Current status report 2023

Biologic therapies for severe asthma with persistent type 2 inflammation

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Eligibility of C-BIOPRED severe asthma cohort for type-2 biologic therapies

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

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

Real-World Effectiveness of Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma: Analysis of the KoSAR

Real-World Effectiveness of Mepolizumab in Patients with Allergic and Non-Allergic Asthma

Clinical remission in patients with biologic-naïve asthma: a multicenter study in Japan

Antibody therapy for the management of severe asthma with eosinophilic inflammation

Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Differences in asthma-related outcomes by anti-IL-5 biologics, omalizumab, and dupilumab based on blood eosinophil counts