Dupilumab has been associated with adverse reactions including symptomatic hypereosinophilia. This study reports the incidence of dupilumab-related eosinophilia and adverse reactions in severe asthma patients at an Australian tertiary centre. https://bit.ly/3JgZ5Ya.

BACKGROUND:Guidelines endorse systematic assessment for severe asthma, with data indicating benefit across multiple outcome domains.OBJECTIVE:We examined which patients respond to systematic assessment and whether oral corticosteroid burden can be decreased independent of monoclonal biologic use.METHODS:Specialist-referred patients are assessed systematically for difficult asthma at our center. We undertook a responder analysis for improvements in the domains of symptom control, quality of life, exacerbations, and airflow obstruction, assessed 6 months after initial assessment. Multivariate analyses were performed for each domain to identify predictors of response. Changes in oral corticosteroid burden were also measured, stratified by monoclonal biologics commenced during assessment.RESULTS:Among 161 patients assessed systematically, 64% had a reduction in exacerbations, 54% achieved minimum clinically important differences for both symptom control and quality of life, and 40% increased their forced expiratory volume in 1 second by ≥100 mL. Altogether, 87% of patients with asthma improved in at least 1 domain. The most consistent predictor of response across domains was poorer baseline asthma status. There was a substantial reduction in mean chronic oral corticosteroid dose (11-5 mg, n = 46, P < .001), even after excluding 7 patients commenced on monoclonal biologics (11-5.6 mg, n = 39, P < .001).CONCLUSIONS:Almost 90% of patients undergoing systematic assessment for difficult asthma improve significantly in at least 1 key asthma outcome, with few reliable predictors of response. The halving of oral corticosteroid burden during systematic assessment is independent of, and comparable in magnitude with, that achieved by monoclonal biologics.

Nonadherence to inhaled preventers impairs asthma control. Electronic monitoring devices (EMDs) can objectively measure adherence. Their use has not been reported in difficult asthma patients potentially suitable for novel therapies, i.e. biologics and bronchial thermoplasty. Consecutive patients with difficult asthma were assessed for eligibility for novel therapies. Medication adherence, defined as taking >75% of prescribed doses, was assessed by EMD and compared with standardised clinician assessment over an 8-week period. Among 69 difficult asthma patients, adherence could not be analysed in 13, due to device incompatibility or malfunction. Nonadherence was confirmed in 20 out of 45 (44.4%) patients. Clinical assessment of nonadherence was insensitive (physician 15%, nurse 28%). Serum eosinophils were higher in nonadherent patients. Including 11 patients with possible nonadherence (device refused or not returned) increased the nonadherence rate to 31 out of 56 (55%) patients. Severe asthma criteria were fulfilled by 59 out of 69 patients. 47 were eligible for novel therapies, with confirmed nonadherence in 16 out of 32 (50%) patients with EMD data; including seven patients with possible nonadherence increased the nonadherence rate to 23 out of 39 (59%). At least half the patients eligible for novel therapies were nonadherent to preventers. Nonadherence was often undetectable by clinical assessments. Preventer adherence must be confirmed objectively before employing novel severe asthma therapies.