Background/Objectives: Severe asthma remains difficult to treat, even with the range of biologics we now have that target type 2 inflammation. Some patients do not respond well enough to the first biologic they try, which raises the question of whether switching to another option can help. In this study, we looked at how patients who had unsatisfactory therapeutic outcomes on other biologics responded—both clinically and at the biomarker level—after switching to dupilumab. Methods: We reviewed data from the Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy, between January and June 2025. The study included fifteen adults with uncontrolled severe asthma who had previously been treated for at least six months with benralizumab, omalizumab, or mepolizumab before switching to dupilumab. We evaluated demographic, clinical and laboratory data. Lung function (Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV₁)), blood eosinophils, total and specific IgE to staphylococcal enterotoxins, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), free light chains (FLC), and FeNO were assessed at the time of the switch and again after 12 months. Comparisons were made using paired tests, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: After a year on dupilumab, we saw clear improvements: mean FEV₁ went up by about 10.8% predicted (p = 0.002), FeNO dropped by an average of 22 ppb (p = 0.005), blood eosinophils fell by roughly 400 cells/µL (p = 0.003), and ECP levels decreased by 13 µg/L (p = 0.009). Kappa FLCs also showed a significant drop (p = 0.04). Clinically, 40% of patients met criteria for a meaningful response, and 20% achieved complete remission. Dependence on oral corticosteroids was notably reduced. Baseline levels of eosinophils, ECP, IgE, and FLCs correlated with response to treatment. Conclusions: Our study, despite the small sample size, highlights that in patients with severe asthma who do not show a good response to their first biologic, switching to dupilumab can lead to significant improvements. Markers of type 2 inflammation at baseline might help predict who benefits most. Larger, multi-center, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Background: Long COVID remains a challenging and heterogeneous condition, with mechanisms that are still incompletely understood. Emerging evidence suggests that patients with allergic disease may experience more persistent post-COVID symptoms, possibly due to immune dysregulation and epithelial barrier fragility. Methods: We carried out an observational, single-center study at the Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit of Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (Rome, Italy). Seventeen adults with confirmed allergic disease and long COVID were evaluated between July and December 2024. Biomarkers reflecting allergic inflammation and barrier integrity, blood eosinophil count, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), and serum free light chains (FLCs), were measured and analyzed for interrelationships and symptom correlations. Results: Participants (10 men, 7 women; mean age 43.7 years) showed variable biomarker profiles, consistent with the heterogeneity of allergic inflammation. Mean eosinophil count was 179 ± 72 cells/µL, total IgE 165.4 ± 140.6 kU/L, ECP 64.2 ± 48.5 ng/mL, and the kappa/lambda FLC ratio 1.20 ± 0.69. Notably, elevated kappa FLC levels (>19.4 mg/L) were significantly associated with high ECP (>20 ng/mL) (χ² = 10.6, p = 0.001) and increased IgE (>200 kU/L) (χ² = 6.0, p = 0.015). Individuals with higher ECP and FLCs more often reported respiratory and systemic symptoms, especially fatigue, dyspnea, and cognitive fog, that persisted beyond six months. Conclusions: These findings suggest that biomarkers of allergic inflammation and barrier dysfunction, particularly ECP and FLCs, may contribute to the persistence of long-COVID symptoms in allergic patients. The observed links between humoral activation, eosinophilic activity, and prolonged symptom burden support a model of sustained inflammation and delayed epithelial recovery. Larger, longitudinal studies including non-allergic controls are warranted to confirm these associations and to explore whether restoring barrier integrity could shorten recovery trajectories in this vulnerable population.

Background/Objectives Severe asthma remains difficult to treat, even with the range of biologics we now have that target type 2 inflammation. Some patients do not respond well enough to the first biologic they try, which raises the question of whether switching to another option can help. In this study, we looked at how patients who had unsatisfactory therapeutic outcomes on other biologics responded—both clinically and at the biomarker level—after switching to dupilumab. Methods We reviewed data from the Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS between January and June 2025. The study included fifteen adults with uncontrolled severe asthma who had previously been treated for at least six months with benralizumab, omalizumab, or mepolizumab before switching to dupilumab. We assessed lung function (FEV₁), blood eosinophils, IgE, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), free light chains (FLC), and FeNO at the time of the switch and again after 12 months. Statistical comparisons were made using paired tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results After a year on dupilumab, we saw clear improvements: mean FEV₁ went up by about 10.8% predicted (p = 0.002), FeNO dropped by an average of 22 ppb (p = 0.005), blood eosinophils fell by roughly 400 cells/µL (p = 0.003), and ECP levels decreased by 13 µg/L (p = 0.009). Kappa FLCs also showed a significant drop (p = 0.04). Clinically, 40% of patients met criteria for a meaningful response, and 20% achieved complete remission. Dependence on oral corticosteroids was notably reduced. Baseline levels of eosinophils, ECP, IgE, and FLCs correlated with response to treatment. Conclusions For patients with severe asthma who do not show a good response to their first biologic, switching to dupilumab can lead to significant clinical and biomarker improvements. Markers of type 2 inflammation at baseline might help predict who benefits most. Larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Background: Precision medicine targets clinical remission, but traditional symptom-based frameworks often ignore the biological pathways driving the disease. Adequate T2 biomarker interpretation is crucial to identify phenotypes where FeNO reflects epithelial barrier distress. We investigated the “clinical-biological gap” through the analysis of six groups to distinguish profiles of symptomatic resilience from biological insensitivity to corticosteroids. Methods: Real-world study of 292 patients stratified into six groups based on BEC (≥250 cells/microL), FeNO (≥25 ppb), and IgE (≥100 kU/L). ACT, BMI, FEV1, comorbidities, and therapeutic burden were analyzed. Results: The EoS+ IgE+ group showed “symptomatic resilience”: apparent clinical control (54.5% ACT ≥ 20) supported by a critical pharmacological burden (90% salbutamol, 80% OCS ≥ 7.5 mg). The Triple Positive and EoS+ FeNO+ groups depicted “Maximum Steroid Insensitivity,” characterized by poor control despite maximal ICS/OCS regimens. FeNO could appear like the primary driver of instability, reflecting a trajectory of oxidative stress not altered by steroids. Conclusions: T2 biomarkers provide a unique prognostic value unidentifiable by standard clinical assessment. FeNO monitoring unmasks silent distress in resilient patients and identifies the “therapeutic wall” in refractory profiles. Therefore biological remission could represents the only effective target to modify the natural history of the disease.