Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Introduction. Biologics for severe asthma (SA) treatment are widely used in real clinical practice. But there are very few direct comparative studies at the moment.Aim. To compare mepolizumab and dupilumab effectiveness in patients with non-allergic eosinophilic SA in real clinical practice using regional register of Sverdlovsk region.Materials and methods. The data of patients with non-allergic eosinophilic SA treated with dupilumab (n = 23) and mepolizumab (n = 19) were analyzed. Therapy effectiveness was determined according to BARS and patients’ proportion who achieved asthma remission, dynamics of ACT, AQLQ, FEV1, blood eosinophils, frequency of short-acting bronchodilators use and systemic glucocorticosteroids (SGCS) demand, frequency of asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations.Results. Within 12 months of targeted therapy a good response to biologics according to BARS in 77.8% of patients on dupilumab and in 82.4% of patients on mepolizumab (p = 1.000) was revealed. Remission of SA (without FEV1) was achieved in 62.5% of patients in dupilumab group and in 68.8% of patients in mepolizumab group (p = 1.000). Remission of SA (with FEV1) was achieved in 43.8% of patients on dupilumab and in 56.2% of patients on mepolizumab (p = 0.724). There were statistically significant improvements for all separately analyzed indicators in each observation group. Statistically significant differences after a year of therapy between groups were recorded in terms of eosinophil levels (p < 0.001) and nasal symptoms assessed using the SNOT-22 questionnaire (p = 0.048) in favour of mepolizumab.Conclusions. Patients with non-allergic eosinophilic SA have good response to both dupilumab and mepolizumab. The drugs equally improve disease control, life quality, reduce the need for relievers and SGCS, show a similar safety level.
Introduction. Biologics for severe asthma (SA) treatment are widely used in real clinical practice. But there are very few direct comparative studies at the moment.Aim. To compare mepolizumab and dupilumab effectiveness in patients with non-allergic eosinophilic SA in real clinical practice using regional register of Sverdlovsk region.Materials and methods. The data of patients with non-allergic eosinophilic SA treated with dupilumab (n = 23) and mepolizumab (n = 19) were analyzed. Therapy effectiveness was determined according to BARS and patients’ proportion who achieved asthma remission, dynamics of ACT, AQLQ, FEV1, blood eosinophils, frequency of short-acting bronchodilators use and systemic glucocorticosteroids (SGCS) demand, frequency of asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations.Results. Within 12 months of targeted therapy a good response to biologics according to BARS in 77.8% of patients on dupilumab and in 82.4% of patients on mepolizumab (p = 1.000) was revealed. Remission of SA (without FEV1) was achieved in 62.5% of patients in dupilumab group and in 68.8% of patients in mepolizumab group (p = 1.000). Remission of SA (with FEV1) was achieved in 43.8% of patients on dupilumab and in 56.2% of patients on mepolizumab (p = 0.724). There were statistically significant improvements for all separately analyzed indicators in each observation group. Statistically significant differences after a year of therapy between groups were recorded in terms of eosinophil levels (p < 0.001) and nasal symptoms assessed using the SNOT-22 questionnaire (p = 0.048) in favour of mepolizumab.Conclusions. Patients with non-allergic eosinophilic SA have good response to both dupilumab and mepolizumab. The drugs equally improve disease control, life quality, reduce the need for relievers and SGCS, show a similar safety level.
BACKGROUND: complexity of choice a genetically engineered biological drug (GEBD) for severe bronchial asthma (SA) treatment is due to intersection of endotypes and phenotypes of the disease. Mistakes in biologicals choice lead to discontinuation and/or switching of the drug due to insufficient effectiveness of therapy. AIMS: to determine reasons to stop targeted therapy and biologicals switching effectiveness in patients with SA in real clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: analyzed patients with SA (n=116) from Sverdlovsk region register were divided into 3 groups (#1-continuous, #2-stoppers and #3-switched). Predictors of biologicals withdrawal and switching, reasons for the 1st biological stopping, switching schemes, therapy effectiveness after switching (according to ACT, FEV1, AQLQ, SNOT-22, the need for SGCS, achievement of SA remission) were determined. RESULTS: There were 17.2% stopping and 12.1% switching patients out of 116 patients in the registry. Stoppers suffered from CRSwNP less often and had earlier asthma onsets. Switched patients had higher blood eosinophils level. Therapy was cancelled for personal reasons in 45% of patients. Therapys ineffectiveness in SA and/or in CRSwNP was the main reason for switching (92.8%) mostly from omalizumab and benralizumab. The switch drug of choice was dupilumab. Improved indicators: ACT (by 86.4%), FEV1 (by 21.2%), AQLQ (by 52.5%), SNOT-22 (by 48%), the need for SGCS decreased to 0 in 12 months after switching. Remission was achieved in 62.5% of patients (excluding FEV1) and 50% of patients (including FEV1). CONCLUSIONS: Careful selection of targeted therapy patients allows to minimize the failures of the starting drug to 12.1%. Switching the starting GEBD, aimed only at blocking eosinophils or only at blocking IgE, due to its inefficiency, to a drug with a dual mechanism of action leads to a significant improvement in ACT, FEV1, AQLQ, SNOT-22 and absence of SGCS need.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.