Background: Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is a prevalent disorder characterized by repetitive upper airway obstructions during sleep, leading to intermittent hypoxia and sleep fragmentation. Current treatments, particularly Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), face adherence challenges, necessitating novel therapeutic approaches. Methods: This review explores the potential of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), commonly used for type 2 diabetes and obesity, in managing OSA. GLP-1RA promotes weight loss, enhances insulin sensitivity, and exhibits anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties, potentially addressing key pathophysiological aspects of OSA. Results: Emerging evidence suggests that these agents may reduce OSA severity by decreasing upper airway fat deposition and improving respiratory control. Clinical trials have demonstrated significant reductions in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) and improvements in sleep quality with GLP-1 therapy. Conclusions: Future research should focus on elucidating the mechanisms underlying GLP-1 effects on OSAS, optimizing combination therapies, and identifying patient subgroups that may benefit the most. Integrating GLP-1RA into OSAS management could revolutionize treatment by addressing both the metabolic and respiratory components of the disorder, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.

Currently, three classes of monoclonal antibodies targeting type 2 inflammation pathways are available in Italy for the treatment of severe asthma: anti-IgE (Omalizumab), anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα (Mepolizumab and Benralizumab), and anti-IL-4Rα (Dupilumab). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life studies have been conducted to define their efficacy and identify baseline patients’ characteristics potentially predictive of favorable outcomes. Switching to another monoclonal antibody is recommended in case of a lack of benefits. The aim of this work is to review the current knowledge on the impact of switching biological therapies in severe asthma as well as on predictors of treatment response or failure. Almost all of the information about switching from a previous monoclonal antibody to another comes from a real-life setting. In the available studies, the most frequent initial biologic was Omalizumab and patients who were switched because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate despite OCS dependence. The choice of the most suitable treatment may be guided by the patient’s clinical history, biomarkers of endotype (mainly blood eosinophils and FeNO), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis). Due to overlapping eligibility, larger investigations characterizing the clinical profile of patients benefiting from switching to different monoclonal antibodies are needed.

Introduction: Clinical remission (CliR) achievement has been recognized as a new potential outcome in severe asthma. Nevertheless, we still lack a detailed profile of what features could better identify patients undergoing clinical remission. In this study, we aim to address this issue, tracing a possible identikit of patients fulfilling remission criteria.Methods: We enrolled 266 patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) treated with a 12-month course of anti-IL5/IL5 receptor (IL5r) monoclonal antibodies. Patients with no exacerbation, OCS withdrawal, ACT ≥ 20 and FEV₁ ≥ 80% after 1 year of biologic treatment were classified as in clinical remission.Results: 30.5% of the enrolled patients achieved remission after biologic administration. CliR group showed a lower number of baseline asthma exacerbations and better lung function parameters, with a trend for higher ACT scores and a less frequent history of a positive skin prick test. CliR achievement was unlikely in presence of a higher BMI, a positive skin prick test, an increased number of asthma exacerbations before biologic treatment, anti-muscarinic administration, and a previous diagnosis of EGPA, bronchiectasis or osteoporosis. In contrast, a better lung function, an increased blood eosinophilic count, the presence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and a more frequent use of reliever therapy predicts remission development. Changes in exacerbations number, OCS use, ACT scores and FEV₁% between remittent and non-remittent patients arise at specific follow up timepoints and are positively associated with CliR achievement.Discussion: anti-IL5/IL5r biologics can induce CliR in a proportion of patients with SEA. Patients achieving remission demonstrate specific clinical, functional and inflammatory features, as well as a specific moment of improvement in all the CliR items.

Introduction: The co-presence of bronchiectasis (BE) in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) is common. Data about the effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with SEA and BE (SEA + BE) are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of benralizumab and remission rates in patients with SEA compared to SEA + BE, also according to BE severity. Methods: We conducted a multicentre observational study, including patients with SEA who underwent chest high-resolution computed tomography at baseline. The Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI) was used to assess BE severity. Clinical and functional characteristics were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Results: We included 74 patients with SEA treated with benralizumab, of which 35 (47.2%) showed the co-presence of bronchiectasis (SEA + BE) with a median BSI of 9 (7–11). Overall, benralizumab significantly improved the annual exacerbation rate (p < 0.0001), oral corticosteroids (OCS) consumption (p < 0.0001) and lung function (p < 0.01). After 12 months, significant differences were found between SEA and SEA + BE cohorts in the number of exacerbation-free patients [64.1% vs. 20%, OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.05–0.40), p < 0.0001], the proportion of OCS withdrawal [−92.6% vs. −48.6, p = 0.0003], and the daily dose of OCS [−5 mg (0 to −12.5) vs. −12.5 mg (−7.5 to −20), p = 0.0112]. Remission (zero exacerbations + zero OCS) was achieved more frequently in the SEA cohort [66.7% vs. 14.3%, OR 0.08 (95% CI 0.03–0.27), p < 0.0001]. Changes in FEV₁% and FEF_25–75% were inversely correlated with BSI (r = −0.36, p = 0.0448 and r = −0.41, p = 0.0191, respectively). Conclusions: These data suggest that benralizumab exerts beneficial effects in SEA with or without BE, although the former achieved less OCS sparing and fewer respiratory-function improvements.