In the past, asthma was considered mainly as a childhood disease. However, asthma is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly nowadays. In addition, the burden of asthma is more significant in the elderly than in their younger counterparts, particularly with regard to mortality, hospitalization, medical costs or health-related quality of life. Nevertheless, asthma in the elderly is still been underdiagnosed and undertreated. Therefore, it is an imperative task to recognize our current challenges and to set future directions. This project aims to review the current literature and identify unmet needs in the fields of research and practice for asthma in the elderly. This will enable us to find new research directions, propose new therapeutic strategies, and ultimately improve outcomes for elderly people with asthma. There are data to suggest that asthma in older adults is phenotypically different from young patients, with potential impact on the diagnosis, assessment and management in this population. The diagnosis of AIE in older populations relies on the same clinical findings and diagnostic tests used in younger populations, but the interpretation of the clinical data is more difficult. The challenge today is to encourage new research in AIE but to use the existing knowledge we have to make the diagnosis of AIE, educate the patient, develop a therapeutic approach to control the disease, and ultimately provide a better quality of life to our elderly patients.

Managing patients with severe asthma during the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 is a challenge. Authorities and physicians are still learning how COVID-19 affects people with underlying diseases, and severe asthma is not an exception. Unless relevant data emerge that change our understanding of the relative safety of medications indicated in patients with asthma during this pandemic, clinicians must follow the recommendations of current evidence-based guidelines for preventing loss of control and exacerbations. Also, with the absence of data that would indicate any potential harm, current advice is to continue the administration of biological therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with asthma for whom such therapies are clearly indicated and have been effective. For patients with severe asthma infected by SARS-CoV-2, the decision to maintain or postpone biological therapy until the patient recovers should be a case-by-case based decision supported by a multidisciplinary team. A registry of cases of COVID-19 in patients with severe asthma, including those treated with biologics, will help to address a clinical challenge in which we have more questions than answers.

Consistent with the diversity of Latin America, there is profound variability in asthma burden among and within countries in this region. Regional variation in asthma prevalence is likely multifactorial and due to genetics, perinatal exposures, diet, obesity, tobacco use, indoor and outdoor pollutants, psychosocial stress, and microbial or parasitic infections. Similarly, nonuniform progress in asthma management leads to regional variability in disease morbidity. Future studies of distinct asthma phenotypes should follow up well-characterized Latin American subgroups and examine risk factors that are unique or common in Latin America (e.g. stress and violence, parasitic infections and use of biomass fuels for cooking). Because most Latin American countries share the same barriers to asthma management, concerted and multifaceted public health and research efforts are needed, including approaches to curtail tobacco use, campaigns to improve asthma treatment, broadening access to care and clinical trials of non-pharmacologic interventions (e.g. replacing biomass fuels with gas or electric stoves).

Background Regulations on medicinal products for paediatric use require that pharmacokinetics and safety be characterized specifically in the paediatric population. A previous study established that a 10‐mg dose of bilastine in children aged 2 to <12 years provided an equivalent systemic exposure as 20 mg in adults. The current study assessed the safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria. Methods In this phase III, multicentre, double‐blind study, children were randomized to once‐daily treatment with bilastine 10‐mg oral dispersible table (n = 260) or placebo (n = 249) for 12 weeks. Safety evaluations included treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests, cardiac safety (ECG recordings) and somnolence/sedation using the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ). Results The primary hypothesis of non‐inferiority between bilastine 10 mg and placebo was demonstrated on the basis of a near‐equivalent proportion of children in each treatment arm without TEAEs during 12 weeks' treatment (31.5 vs. 32.5%). No clinically relevant differences between bilastine 10 mg and placebo were observed from baseline to study end for TEAEs or related TEAEs, ECG parameters and PSQ scores. The majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity. TEAEs led to discontinuation of two patients treated with bilastine 10 mg and one patient treated with placebo. Conclusions Bilastine 10 mg had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of placebo in children aged 2 to <12 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria.

No abstract