Biologics In Severe Asthma Research Articles

Challenges in the successful management of asthma during conception, pregnancy and delivery.

Asthma and infertility are the most common disorders among women of reproductive age. Time to pregnancy is prolonged in women with asthma, and importantly, age seems to be a more important risk factor regarding fertility in women with asthma compared to women without asthma. Some data have shown a higher frequency of miscarriages in women with asthma, although the data are conflicting on this issue as studies have observed no association between asthma and pregnancy loss. Furthermore, studies have shown no negative effect of asthma on the total number of offspring. Pregnancy may, thus, have a significant impact on women with asthma, as well as on their offspring. The age of the women has an important impact on ability to conceive, but also for the pregnancy itself, with higher risk of uncontrolled asthma as well as asthma exacerbations with increasing age. Well-controlled asthma decreases the risk of maternal and fetal complications, while poorly controlled and undertreated asthma is associated with a range of risks for both mother and fetus. Asthma treatment should follow the general guidelines for asthma therapy, irrespective of pregnancy status, including treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, β2-agonists and muscarinic antagonists. Targeted treatment with biologics for severe asthma seems to be without important adverse effects. The use of systemic corticosteroids may be associated with adverse events during the first trimester; however, an exacerbation with the associated risk of hypoxaemia is worse for the fetus. Best possible asthma control may be achieved using repeated measurements of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F ENO), as the use of F ENO compared with symptoms registration only has been shown to reduce exacerbation rate. In conclusion, women with asthma should be encouraged to conceive at an early age, might experience miscarriages, but the number of offspring are the same as in women without asthma. Well treated asthma is important for the well-being of both the mother and the unborn fetus.

Perceptions on Home-Administration of Biologics in the Context of Severe Asthma: An International Qualitative Study

Biologics are an effective therapy for severe asthma. Home administration of biologics by patients is likely to facilitate their accessibility. Yet little is known about patients' and health care providers' (HCPs) perceptions regarding home administration of biologics. The aim of this study is to create more insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs regarding home administration of biologics in the context of the treatment of severe asthma. A qualitative international study was performed in the Netherlands, United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. In each country, 2 focus groups were held with potential/recent and long-term users of biologics at home. Prior to the focus groups, patients were prompted with themes on online forums. For triangulation purposes, interviews were held with HCPs to discuss salient findings from forums and focus groups. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis. In total, 75 patients participated in the forums, of which 40 participated in the focus groups. Furthermore, 12 HCPs were interviewed. The following overarching themes were identified: living with severe asthma; practical aspects of using biologics; the role of HCPs regarding biologics; social support from family, friends, and others; effectiveness of biologics and other treatments; side effects of biologics. This study showed that, for those using biologics for severe asthma, the benefits of home administration of biologics usually outweigh inconvenience and side effects. Guided practice, accessible support contact, and monitoring including social support should be central in the transition from hospital to home administration of asthma biologics.

Development of methodology for assessing steroid-tapering in clinical trials for biologics in asthma

BackgroundLong-term use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) is associated with a risk of adverse events and comorbidities. As such, a goal in assessing the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma is often to monitor reduction in OCS usage. Importantly, however, OCS dose reductions must be conducted without loss of disease control.Main bodyHerein, we describe the development of OCS-sparing study methodologies for biologic therapies in patients with asthma. In particular, we focus on four randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of varying sizes (key single-center study [n = 20], SIRIUS [n = 135], ZONDA [n = 220], VENTURE [n = 210]) and one open-label study (PONENTE [n = 598]), which assessed the effect of asthma biologics (mepolizumab, benralizumab or dupilumab) on OCS use using predefined OCS-tapering schedules. In particular, we discuss the evolution of study design elements in these studies, including patient eligibility criteria, the use of tailored OCS dose reduction schedules, monitoring of outcomes, the use of biomarkers and use of repetitive assessments of adrenal function during OCS tapering.ConclusionTaken together, these developments have improved OCS-sparing asthma studies in recent years and the lessons learned may help with optimization of further OCS-sparing studies, and potentially clinical practice in the future.

Feasibility of Discontinuing Biologics in Severe Asthma: An Algorithmic Approach.

In severe asthma with type 2 (T2) inflammation, biologics targeting key mediators of T2 inflammation, including interleukin (IL)-5, IL-4/IL-13, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E, remarkably improve the management of severe asthma, providing new insights into the clinical course of asthma such as disease modification and broad modulation of T2 inflammation. Once severe asthma has become a “controllable” condition, the question of discontinuation of biologics arises due to cost and side effects. The studies on discontinuing biologics in asthma demonstrate that some of patients successfully discontinue biologics, indicating that it is a feasible option in a subset of patients. Incorporating the evidence of discontinuation, we propose the criteria for the discontinuation of biologics. Our proposed criteria for the discontinuation of biologics consist of an absence of asthma symptoms (asthma control questionnaire [ACQ] score < 1.5 or asthma control test [ACT] score > 19), no asthma exacerbations, no use of oral corticosteroids, normalized spirometry (forced exhaled volume in 1 second [FEV1] ≥ 80%), suppressed T2 inflammation (blood eosinophil counts < 300 μL and fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] < 50 ppb), and control of asthma comorbidities. Real-world evidence verified a subset of patients achieving highly well-controlled conditions after use of biologics, namely super-responders, who are candidates for the discontinuation of biologics. If super-responders meet all of the criteria, they are allowed to discontinue biological therapies. Our proposed algorithm may support physicians’ treatment decisions for patients receiving biologics.

P9‐29: Bone mineral density can be one of the predictors of response to biologics in severe asthma

P9‐29: Bone mineral density can be one of the predictors of response to biologics in severe asthma

Oral corticosteroid elimination via a personalised reduction algorithm in adults with severe, eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (PONENTE): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm study

No consensus exists on how to reduce oral corticosteroids after the initiation of biologics in severe asthma. The PONENTE trial evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a rapid, individualised steroid-reduction algorithm, including adrenal insufficiency monitoring, after benralizumab initiation. This multicentre, open-label, single-arm study was done at 138 clinical asthma treatment centres across 17 countries. We enrolled adult patients (age ≥18 years) with severe, eosinophilic asthma (blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells per μL at enrolment or ≥300 cells per μL in the previous year) requiring maintenance oral corticosteroids for at least 3 months preceding enrolment. Patients received benralizumab 30 mg (subcutaneous injection) every 4 weeks for three doses, then every 8 weeks thereafter. The oral corticosteroid reduction phase began at week 4 with daily oral corticosteroid dosages reduced by 1-5 mg every 1-4 weeks depending on the starting dosage, asthma control, and adrenal function status. Adrenal function was assessed with an early morning serum cortisol measurement, followed by adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation when required, once patients achieved a daily oral corticosteroid dosage of 5 mg/day for 4 weeks. Repeat cortisol measurements were taken for patients with evidence of adrenal insufficiency at first testing. Asthma control was assessed with the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) weekly throughout the induction and oral corticosteroid reduction phases. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients eliminating daily oral corticosteroids, sustained for at least 4 weeks, and the percentage achieving elimination or a daily prednisone or prednisolone dosage of 5 mg or less, for at least 4 weeks, if the reason for no further reduction was adrenal insufficiency. Safety and efficacy analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of benralizumab and were descriptive. We present results after the oral corticosteroid reduction phase; a maintenance phase is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03557307. Between April 1, 2018, and Sept 5, 2020, of 705 patients assessed for eligibility, 598 were recruited and all received at least one dose of benralizumab. Overall, 376 (62·88%, 95% CI 58·86-66·76) of 598 patients eliminated oral corticosteroids and 490 (81·94%, 78·62-84·94) of 598 eliminated use or achieved a dosage of 5 mg or less if the reason for stopping the reduction was adrenal insufficiency. Subgroup analysis showed that dosage reductions were achieved irrespective of baseline eosinophil count, baseline oral corticosteroid dosage, or oral corticosteroid treatment duration. Adrenal insufficiency was detected in 321 (60%) of 533 patients at first assessment and in 205 (38%) of 533 patients 2-3 months later. The safety profile was consistent with previous experience. Most patients (448 [75%] of 598) had no asthma exacerbations during the oral corticosteroid reduction phase with an annualised exacerbation rate of 0·63. Of 598 patients, 38 (6%) experienced a total of 46 exacerbations resulting in emergency department or urgent care visits or hospitalisations. Despite a high prevalence of adrenal insufficiency, most patients with eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab achieved elimination of oral corticosteroids or maximal possible reduction using a personalised dosage-reduction algorithm. AstraZeneca.

Biological therapies, asthma and coronavirus disease 2019.

As of June 2021, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exceeded 180 million reported cases and was responsible for almost 4 million deaths globally. Asthma affects approximately 262 million people worldwide and is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Presently, it appears asthma is neither associated with an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 nor with a risk of severe COVID-19 or COVID-19 related death. Regarding the severe asthma patients on biologics, questions remain. The purpose of this review is to discuss the evidence regarding the relationship between asthma, biologics and COVID-19. The available evidence does not suggest that severe asthmatics on treatment with biologics have a higher risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection compared to the general population. It does not appear that they have a higher risk of severe disease or COVID-19 related death either. This review suggests that treatment with biologics for severe asthma is safe and should be maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, more studies are needed to address this question and the role of biological therapy on different asthma phenotypes.

Real-life Cretan asthma registry focused on severe asthma: On behalf of 'The Cretan registry of the use of Biologics in Severe Asthma'.

Asthma diagnosis and management remains a challenging task for the medical community. The aim of the present study was to present the functional and inflammatory profiles of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma in a real-life clinical setting referred to the specialized asthma clinic at the University Hospital of Heraklion. The registry included a cohort of 267 patients who were referred to the severe asthma clinic. Patients were assessed with emphasis on the history of allergies, nasal polyposis or other comorbidities. Blood testing for eosinophils counts and total and specific IgE, and pulmonary function tests were performed at baseline. The median age of patients with asthma was 55 years old, 68.5% were women and 58.3% were never smokers. The vast majority presented with late onset asthma (75.7%), whereas eight (3%) patients were on oral corticosteroids. The median number of exacerbations during the last 12 months was 1 (0-3). Furthermore, 50.7% of patients had a positive serum allergy test, the median eosinophil count was 300 (188-508.5) cells/µl of blood and median total IgE level was 117.5 (29.4-360.5) IU/ml. Patients were retrospectively grouped in the following categories: Group 1, mild-moderate asthma; group 2, patients prescribed a step 4 or 5 asthma therapy according to Global Initiative for Asthma; and group 3, patients on biologic agents. Group 1 had significantly higher FEV1% than groups 2 and 3 (93.4 vs. 79.9 and 79.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Finally, the median Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 (ACQ7) score was 1.14, with patients from groups 2 and 3 presenting higher ACQ7 scores compared with group 1 patients as expected (1.1 and 2.1 vs. 0.7, respectively; P<0.001). To the best of our knowledge, this was the first real-life asthma study in Crete that demonstrated that severe asthmatics predominantly have late-onset asthma with airflow obstruction and uncontrolled symptoms.

Attitudes of Croatian pulmonologists concerning obstacles to earlier, more appropriate use of biologics in severe asthma: Survey results.

AimsBiologics have been proven efficacious for patients with severe asthma (SA). It is essential to diagnose such individuals correctly. This study was designed to survey pulmonologists to identify barriers to early diagnosis and subsequent appropriate use of biologics for SA in Croatia.MethodsA pulmonologist group with expertise in SA developed the initial list of questions, with the final questionnaire created according to a 2-round Delphi method. The resulting survey consisted of 23 items consequently divided into 4 domains: 1) Pulmonologists’ demographics and professional experiences; 2) Concerns about asthma management; 3) Attitudes toward SA diagnosis; and 4) Beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of biologics in managing SA. The given answers represented the respondents’ estimates.ResultsEighty-four surveys were analyzed, with pulmonologists observing that general practitioners often inaccurately diagnose asthma and treat acute exacerbations. Although specialist centers are capably and correctly equipped, the time to diagnose patients with SA is approximately 3.5 months, with initial use of biologics delayed an additional 2 months. The primary indications for prescribing biologics are conventional therapy with oral glucocorticoids (91.7%) and frequent acute exacerbations (82.1%). In addition to improper diagnosis (64.3%), many patients with SA do not receive the indicated biologics owing to strict administrative directives for reimbursement (70.2%) or limited hospital resources (57.1%).LimitationsThe limitations of this survey include the subjective nature of the collected data, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of the biologic efficacy evaluation.ConclusionsCroatian pulmonologists observed that a significant number of patients with SA who are eligible for biologics are not prescribed them, largely because of an inaccurate and/or delayed diagnosis, a delayed referral to a specialist center, highly restrictive criteria for reimbursement, and/or institutional budgetary limitations.

Biologics in severe asthma.

Asthma is a chronic airway disease consisting of usually variable airflow limitation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Many different phenotypes characterize the clinical expression of asthma, determined by heterogeneous inflammatory patterns driven by distinct cellular and molecular mechanisms known as endotypes. Inside the complex framework of asthma pathobiology, several molecules such as immunoglobulins E (IgE), pro-inflammatory cytokines and their receptors can be targeted by present and future biological treatments of severe asthma. Within this context, already registered monoclonal antibodies including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab may interfere at various levels with the pathogenic pathways responsible for type-2 airway inflammation. In particular, these drugs target IgE (omalizumab), IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab), IL-5 receptor (benralizumab) and IL-4/IL-13 receptors (dupilumab), respectively. Moreover, other biological therapies are under evaluation in premarketing trials, mainly aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies directed against innate cytokines such as IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). Among current and perspective therapeutic approaches, clinicians can choose phenotype/endotype-driven tailored treatments, able to pursue an effective control of difficult to treat type-2 asthma.

Comparison of the sensitivity of patient-reported outcomes for detecting the benefit of biologics in severe asthma.

BackgroundThe sensitivity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to detect the effects of treatment change depends on the match between the change in items of the PRO and the change that takes place in a sample of people. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity of different PROs in detecting changes following the initiation of biologic treatment in asthma. Methods: Patients starting a biologic treatment as part of clinical care completed the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6), the Severe Asthma Questionnaire (SAQ and SAQ-global scores) and the EQ5D (EQ-5D-5L and EQ5D-VAS) at baseline. They completed the ACQ-6, SAQ, SAQ-global and a retrospective global rating of change (GRoC) scale at weeks 4, 8 and 16 and completed the EQ-5D-5L and EQ5D-VAS at week 16. The SAQ-global and EQ5D-VAS differ but both are single item 100-point questions. Sensitivity was measured by Cohen’s D effect size at each of the three time points. Results: 110 patients were recruited. Depending on the time of assessment, effect size varied between 0.45 and 0.64 for the SAQ, between 0.50 and 0.77 for the SAQ-global; between 0.45 and 0.69 for ACQ-6; between 0.91 and 1.22 for GRoC; 0.32 for EQ-5D-5L and 0.49 for EQ5D-VAS. Conclusion: The sensitivity to change of a questionnaire varies with the time of measurement. The three asthma-specific prospective measures (SAQ, SAQ-global and ACQ-6) have similar sensitivity to change. The single-item EQ5D-VAS was less sensitive than the asthma specific measures and less sensitive than the single-item SAQ-global. The EQ-5D-5L was least sensitive.

The Danish severe asthma register: an electronic platform for severe asthma management and research

ABSTRACT The evaluation and management of severe asthma patients require collection of comprehensive information, which is often a challenge in a busy outpatient clinic. The Danish Severe Asthma Register (DSAR) was designed as an electronic patient record form that captures operational clinical data and provides a clinical overview of the severe asthma patient. DSAR is a nationwide register; all patients in Denmark who are treated with biologics for severe asthma are included, and data are as a minimum entered at start of biological treatment, after four and 12 months of treatment, and hereafter annually. Currently, there are data from 621 treatment courses with biologics included in DSAR, with 71% of patients treated with anti-IL-5 drugs and 29% with an anti-IgE drug. Patients enter Patient Reported Outcome Measures electronically on tablets when they arrive in the outpatient clinic and their answers are immediately available to the clinician during the consultation. Nurses and doctors enter clinical data into DSAR during the consultation. DSAR offers immediate access to well-presented longitudinal overview and automatically creates a journal output that can be copy-pasted into the hospital’s existing health record form. DSAR is also currently expanding with an app, to be used for monitoring of home-treatment. In addition to serving as an electronic patient record form, DSAR will also provide opportunities to monitor the real-life efficacy of biological treatment for severe asthma in Denmark, and it will be a valuable research platform that will aid in answering important research questions on severe asthma in the future.

Novel Biologics for the Treatment of Pediatric Severe Asthma

Estimated to represent less than 5% of all asthmatic patients, children with severe asthma experience troublesome persistent symptoms, life-threatening attacks and side effects by oral corticosteroid treatment, that significantly impact on the quality of life and on economic costs. An accurate understanding of the mechanisms of the disease has been crucial for the discovery and development of biological therapies, for which children with severe asthma are candidates. The aim of this review is to discuss the use of approved biologics for severe asthma, providing updated evidence of novel targeted therapies in the pediatric age range.

Suppression of F ENO with observed inhaled corticosteroid therapy in severe asthma: is it a useful test in clinical practice?

FENO suppression testing is practical and feasible during assessment for biologics in severe asthma. Patients with significant FENO suppression were less likely to be recommended biologics but saw similar reductions in exacerbation frequency. http://bit.ly/35oSoxP

A Possible Explanation for Non-responders, Responders and Super-responders to Biologics in Severe Asthma

A Possible Explanation for Non-responders, Responders and Super-responders to Biologics in Severe Asthma

A Possible Explanation for Non-responders, Responders and Super-responders to Biologics in Severe Asthma

Response to biologic therapies in severe asthma is variable, with patients being either nonresponders, responders or super-responders. There is currently no explanation for this variation in response. If asthma-specific inflammatory pathways are part of a wider network of pathogenic mechanisms (including systemic inflammation), then the state of this wider network could either help or hinder the effect of the biologic. People with severe asthma are often polysymptomatic with a variable frequency of nonrespiratory symptoms. Application of existing network theory would predict that high systemic inflammation, measurable by the frequency of nonrespiratory symptoms, should decrease the effectiveness of biologics, a prediction consistent with the limited existing data. A detailed examination of the relationship between biologic response and the frequency or profile of nonrespiratory symptoms would provide a testable prediction of this hypothesis. The clinical presentation of super-responders is consistent with biologics sometimes having a positive effect on the pathology (level of dysregulation) in a network system. If that were the case, then network theory predicts the possibility of a short-term increase in nonrespiratory symptoms prior to the improvement reported by super-responders. If biologics lead to less network dysregulation in some patients, then this raises the possibility of new applications for this therapy and of an improved response to biologics if lifestyle improvement is started prior to biologic therapy.

New Biologics for Severe Asthma: What Patients, What Agents, What Results, at What Cost?

New Biologics for Severe Asthma: What Patients, What Agents, What Results, at What Cost?

PERIPHERAL BLOOD EOSINOPHIL SHIFTS IN SEVERE, UNCONTROLLED ASTHMA

Introduction Greater clarity is needed on peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) associated with events such as exacerbations or responsiveness to biologics in severe asthma. Inclusion criteria and prespecified analyses on peripheral BECs vary between clinical trials. Stability of BEC on repeated measures in this population is unknown. We examined shifts in BEC in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma despite high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists. Methods BEC shift was examined in patients randomized to placebo in two Phase III studies, SIROCCO (NCT01928771; 48 weeks) and CALIMA (NCT01914757; 56 weeks). We grouped patients by baseline BEC and counted the number in each baseline group who had ≥1 recorded peripheral BEC and who then shifted BEC group during the trial. Results 141 patients receiving placebo had a baseline peripheral BEC <150 cells/μL. Of these, 70.2% (n=99) had ≥1 BEC ≥150 cells/μL and 34.8% (n=49) had a BEC ≥300 cells/μL. An additional 170 patients had a baseline peripheral BEC 150≤300 cells/μL. Of these, 62.4% (n=106) had ≥1 BEC ≥300 cells/μL. 428 patients had a baseline peripheral BEC ≥300 cells/μL. Of these, 52.8% (n=226) had ≥1 BEC <300 cells/μL, and 22.4% (n=96) had a BEC <150 cells/μL (figure). Conclusions Most patients with a baseline BEC <150 cells/µL during SIROCCO or CALIMA, and approximately one-third had at least one BEC measurement ≥300 cells/µL. The data suggest that a single BEC does not negate the possibility of a patient having eosinophil-driven disease. Performing additional BECs may be of benefit. Percentage of Patients with Shifts in Peripheral Blood Eosinophil Count Group After Baseline Greater clarity is needed on peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) associated with events such as exacerbations or responsiveness to biologics in severe asthma. Inclusion criteria and prespecified analyses on peripheral BECs vary between clinical trials. Stability of BEC on repeated measures in this population is unknown. We examined shifts in BEC in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma despite high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists. BEC shift was examined in patients randomized to placebo in two Phase III studies, SIROCCO (NCT01928771; 48 weeks) and CALIMA (NCT01914757; 56 weeks). We grouped patients by baseline BEC and counted the number in each baseline group who had ≥1 recorded peripheral BEC and who then shifted BEC group during the trial. 141 patients receiving placebo had a baseline peripheral BEC <150 cells/μL. Of these, 70.2% (n=99) had ≥1 BEC ≥150 cells/μL and 34.8% (n=49) had a BEC ≥300 cells/μL. An additional 170 patients had a baseline peripheral BEC 150≤300 cells/μL. Of these, 62.4% (n=106) had ≥1 BEC ≥300 cells/μL. 428 patients had a baseline peripheral BEC ≥300 cells/μL. Of these, 52.8% (n=226) had ≥1 BEC <300 cells/μL, and 22.4% (n=96) had a BEC <150 cells/μL (figure). Most patients with a baseline BEC <150 cells/µL during SIROCCO or CALIMA, and approximately one-third had at least one BEC measurement ≥300 cells/µL. The data suggest that a single BEC does not negate the possibility of a patient having eosinophil-driven disease. Performing additional BECs may be of benefit.

PRS50 - Challenges in Reimbursement of Biologics in Severe Asthma: A Review of Health Technology Assessments

PRS50 - Challenges in Reimbursement of Biologics in Severe Asthma: A Review of Health Technology Assessments

Controversies and opportunities in severe asthma.

Despite currently available treatments, many asthma patients remain inadequately controlled, but identifying distinct patient populations (phenotypes/endotypes) may optimize their management. This review discusses some of the controversies and opportunities for improved disease control in severe asthma. Currently approved anti-immunoglobulin E and anti-interleukin 5 biologics, which target specific pathways instead of using a 'one size fits all' strategy, are efficacious and well tolerated therapies for severe asthma. The appropriate use of these biologics, and of those in development (e.g., benralizumab and dupilumab), should be aided by further understanding of asthma phenotypes and endotypes, utilizing appropriate biomarkers.Oral corticosteroids are often added as maintenance therapy for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, but their use is associated with significant adverse effects and should be considered a last option. The true cost of this therapy, including the cost of morbidities associated with its use, remains to be determined.Severe asthma in pediatrics poses a unique opportunity for possible prevention strategies and the potential for primary prevention. Although several avenues for primary prevention are being explored and are out of the scope of this review, we focus our discussion on the use of omalizumab, which has been recently explored in clinical trials. Appropriate use of biologics in severe asthma should be supported by further understanding of biomarkers predicting response to targeted therapy. Because of their association with significant adverse effects, add-on oral corticosteroids should be considered a last treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. Finally, severe asthma in pediatrics poses a unique opportunity for potential prevention strategies.