Clinical characteristics and biological treatment responses of patients with late-onset asthma phenotype

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: The data on subphenotypes and treatment responses to biologicals in late-onset asthma (LOA) is limited. This study aims to compare the clinical characteristics and treatment responses in severe asthma patients receiving biological treatments, categorized into early-onset asthma (EOA) and LOA groups. Methods: Patients treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least six months at a tertiary care adult allergy clinic between December 2015 and December 2023 were included. Patients with persistent respiratory symptoms starting at age ≥40 years were categorized as LOA, while those with onset <40 years were categorized as EOA. Changes in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) scores, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentages, and blood eosinophil counts were assessed at baseline and 6 months. The percentage change in FEV1 (liters) at 6 months relative to baseline was measured. Clinical remission rates were evaluated in those completing one year of treatment. Results: Among 87 patients, 38 (43.7%) had LOA and 49 (56.3%) had EOA. Of these, 22 (25.3%) received omalizumab and 65 (74.7%) received mepolizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 24.7 (±19.7) months. LOA patients had higher obesity rates and tobacco consumption compared to EOA patients (p = 0.041 and p = 0.024, respectively). There were no significant differences between LOA and EOA groups in ACQ scores, FEV1 percentage, the percentage change in FEV1 in liters and eosinophil counts (p = 0.531, p = 0.219, p = 0.632, p = 0.700, respectively). Within LOA patients, ACQ scores did not significantly differ between those treated with omalizumab and mepolizumab (p = 0.801). At 6 months, eosinophil counts significantly decreased with mepolizumab but not with omalizumab (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Biological treatment responses were similar between LOA and EOA groups. Omalizumab and mepolizumab showed comparable efficacy, with the exception of eosinophil count changes in LOA patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.