Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well‐recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma‐related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6‐11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1, without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug‐related adverse events (AE) and drug‐related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio per quality‐adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1. More data on long‐term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Background: To validate the ‘Test of Adherence to Inhalers’ (TAI), a 12-item questionnaire designed to assess the adherence to inhalers in patients with COPD or asthma.Methods: A total of 1009 patients with asthma or COPD participated in a cross-sectional multicenter study. Patients with electronic adherence ≥80% were defined as adherents. Construct validity, internal validity, and criterion validity were evaluated. Self-reported adherence was compared with the Morisky-Green questionnaire.Results: Factor analysis study demonstrated two factors, factor 1 was coincident with TAI patient domain (items 1 to 10) and factor 2 with TAI health-care professional domain (items 11 and 12). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.860 and the test-retest reliability 0.883. TAI scores correlated with electronic adherence (ρ=0.293, p=0.01). According to the best cut-off for 10 items (score 50, area under the ROC curve 0.7), 569 (62.5%) patients were classified as non-adherents. The non-adherence behavior pattern was: erratic 527 (57.9%), deliberate 375 (41.2%), and unwitting 242 (26.6%) patients. As compared to Morisky-Green test, TAI showed better psychometric properties.Conclusions: The TAI is a reliable and homogeneous questionnaire to identify easily non-adherence and to classify from a clinical perspective the barriers related to the use of inhalers in asthma and COPD.

This real-life study confirms that omalizumab is very efficacious and very well tolerated in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. Results did not vary in the subgroup of patients with IgE levels >700 IU/ml.

Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of omalizumab in non-atopic asthma. Methods. Using data from a multicenter registry of severe asthma, we evaluated and compared the clinical outcome of 29 omalizumab-treated severe non-atopic asthmatics with 266 omalizumab-treated severe allergic asthmatics. Effectiveness was assessed by considering severe exacerbations, pulmonary function, the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) scale, and Asthma Control Test (ACT). Results. Omalizumab demonstrated significant improvement in the clinical status of non-atopic asthmatics as measured by GETE, which rose from 1.6 ± 1.1 to 2.8 ± 0.9 [corrected] at 4 months (p = .0215) to 2.9 ± 0.9 at 1 year (p = .0093) and to 3.4 ± 0.6 at 2 years (p = .0078), and by the ACT, which increased from 13.3 ± 5.5 [corrected] to 17.5 ± 5.4 at 4 months (p = .0236) to 17.9 ± 4.8 at 1 year (p = .0136) and to 20.6 ± 3.9 at 2 years (p = .0024). Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) improved from 61.0 ± 19.4% to 65.1 ± 17.2 at 4 months to 64.1 ± 24.7 at 1 year and to 67.3 ± 23.0% [corrected] at 2 years, but without significant differences between initial and follow-up measurements (p = .52, .91, and .45, respectively) and exacerbations decreased from 3.1 ± 3.5 to 1.9 ± 2.8 at 1 year (p = .1709) to 1.8 ± 4.4 at 2 years (p = .2344). The results were not significantly different from those obtained in atopic asthmatics. Conclusion. Anti-IgE therapy can be effective in non-atopic severe asthma.

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthmarelated outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 − 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 − 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 − 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 −1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) −0.45 (95% CI −0.58 to −0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD −0.41 (95%CI −0.66 to −0.15)]. K E Y W O R D S benralizumab, dupilumab, exacerbations, omalizumabsevere allergic asthma | 1045 AGACHE Et Al.