Streptococcus pneumoniae related diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in children and in the elderly population. It is transmitted to other individuals through droplets and it can spread to other parts of the human host, causing a wide spectrum of clinical syndromes, affecting between 10 and 100 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and the USA. In order to reduce morbidity and mortality caused by this agent, pneumococcal vaccines have been developed over the years and have shown incredible effectiveness in reducing the spread of this bacterium and the development of related diseases, obtaining a significant reduction in mortality, especially in developing countries. However, considerable problems are emerging mainly due to the replacement phenomenon, multi-drug resistance, and the high production costs of conjugated vaccines. There is still a debate about the indications given by various countries to different age groups; this is one of the reasons for the diffusion of different serotypes. To cope with these problems, significant efforts have been made in the research field to further improve vaccination serotypes coverage. On the other hand, an equally important commitment by health care systems to all age group populations is needed to improve vaccination coverage.

Severe refractory asthma (SRA) still has a high economic and social impact, including a reduction in quality of life (QoL), productivity, a greater risk of exacerbations and emergency department (ED) visits. Another major issue is the need of oral corticosteroids (OCS), often due to a poor response to standard therapies or the lack of indication for currently available biological drugs. A thorough understanding of the immunological pathways and eosinophilopoietic processes allows a correct application of the new pharmacological strategies and leads to better clinical responses. For these unmet needs, several monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have been introduced over the past few years. These are mainly available for allergic and especially eosinophilic uncontrolled refractory asthma. As the number of therapeutic options increases, the choice of biological drugs can be made only after careful considerations of the particular asthma endotype, patients’ comorbidities and clinical data. The selection of the correct therapeutic option can therefore be guided after a careful evaluation of the particular endotype and phenotype, from the combined evaluation of inflammatory biomarkers, clinical picture and comorbidities. The careful evaluation of all these parameters can therefore help the physician in the optimal management of these complex patients, for whom it is often possible to achieve exceptional results by managing the available options in the best possible way. The aim of this review is to define the positioning of the biological drugs currently available for type 2 asthma, with a special focus on options for eosinophilic asthma in the context of the most recent knowledge of immunological pathways.

Purpose: Treatment of severe asthma has made great strides thanks to rapid progress in understanding immune response and inflammatory pathways. This led to the advent of the first biologic for severe allergic asthma (SAA), omalizumab. Although the long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab has been confirmed, increasingly longer follow-up data can further reinforce this evidence and potentially provide new ones, for example on any loss of efficacy or the appearance of unexpected side effects. This study reports omalizumab treatment-related outcomes after 16 years of follow-up. Patients and Methods: In this real-life retrospective study, an extension of a previous 9-year follow-up study on patients initially recruited in a clinical trial, we enrolled 8 adult patients with SAA followed-up from November 2005 to December 2021. Study subjects were selected based on omalizumab eligibility criteria. Results: Exacerbation rate significantly decreased from 3.6 ± 2.1 events in year before index date to 0.1 ± 0.4 after 32 weeks of treatment (p < 0.0001). Mean annual number of mild-to-moderate exacerbations at 16 years was 0.88 compared with 1.8 in the year before the index date and 1.1 at 32 weeks. No hospitalizations were documented during the 16-year follow-up compared to 0.3 hospitalizations/patient in the year before the index date. Respiratory function also progressively and significantly improved. Regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs), The AQLQ and ACT significantly improved from baseline throughout the follow-up, particularly up to 9 years of follow-up. During the study, an overall reduction in doses of asthma medications was observed, with a significant OCS-sparing effect. Conclusion: Our study, the longest clinical follow-up on patients treated with anti-IgE, confirms and amplifies the results of the studies carried out so far, as they are maintained over a very long interval of time without drops in efficacy without any type of side effect.

Patients with severe asthma have a greater risk of asthma-related symptoms, morbidities, and exacerbations. Moreover, healthcare costs of patients with severe refractory asthma are at least 80% higher than those with stable asthma, mainly because of a higher use of healthcare resources and chronic side effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS). The advent of new promising biologicals provides a unique therapeutic option that could achieve asthma control without OCS. However, the increasing number of available molecules poses a new challenge: the identification and selection of the most appropriate treatment. Thanks to a better understanding of the basic mechanisms of the disease and the use of predictive biomarkers, especially regarding the Th2-high endotype, it is now easier than before to tailor therapy and guide clinicians toward the most suitable therapeutic choice, thus reducing the number of uncontrolled patients and therapeutic failures. In this review, we will discuss the different biological options available for the treatment of severe refractory asthma, their mechanism of action, and the overlapping aspects of their usage in clinical practice. The availability of new molecules, specific for different molecular targets, is a key topic, especially when considering that the same targets are sometimes part of the same phenotype. The aim of this review is to help clarify these doubts, which may facilitate the clinical decision-making process and the achievement of the best possible outcomes.

Background: The important progress made on asthma phenotyping encouraged the development of new therapeutic strategies, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and bronchial thermoplasty (BT). The aim of this study is to compare patients diagnosed with severe refractory asthma (SRA) who are currently being treated with omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab or BT and to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments over a 12-month observation period. Methods: Overall, 199 consecutive patients with SRA were included. The cohort was selected referring to the eligibility criteria for all available biologics and BT. Results: Among 32 patients treated with benralizumab, we found a 16.7% reduction in hospitalizations, a 66.6% reduction in exacerbations (p = 0.0001) and the greater improvement in FEV1 (+ 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Among omalizumab group (54 patients), there was a 85.7% (p = 0.012) reduction in hospitalizations and a 88.8% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. In the mepolizumab group (83 patients), we found a 89.5% (p = 0.02) reduction in hospitalizations and a 92.1% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. BT subgroup (30 patients) showed a 93.7% (p = 0.001) reduction in hospitalizations and a 73.5% (p < 0.0001) reduction in exacerbations. The best results in terms of OCS sparing effect were obtained by BT (- 76%, p < 0.0001) and mepolizumab (- 90.2%, p = 0.002). Omalizumab showed the highest percentage of super responder patients. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare all marketed mAbs with BT, ending in more comprehensive and applicable results to clinical practice. All biologics, to varying degrees, reduced hospitalizations, exacerbations, and OCS use. The starting point for patients in the BT group was worse regarding hospitalizations, exacerbations and OCS, but despite this, even this non-pharmacological option obtained positive results, comparable to biologics.