Ramirez-Villamizar Johanna, Ibarra-Enríquez Ciro D, Galindo-Sánchez Juan Sebastián, Serrano-Reyes Carlos, Fernández-Trujillo Liliana
Universidad Icesi, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Calle 18 No. 122-135, Cali, 760031, Colombia.
Fundación Valle del Lili, Department of Internal Medicine, Allergy Service, Carrera 98 No. 18 - 49, Cali, 760032, Colombia.
World Allergy Organ J. 2025 Aug 22;18(9):101107. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101107. eCollection 2025 Sep.
Severe asthma is characterized by poor disease control despite the use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators. Biologic therapies have revolutionized its management, allowing some patients to achieve remission. However, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal duration of treatment and the safest strategies for discontinuation. This study reviews the available evidence on the withdrawal of biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma in remission, evaluating their clinical outcomes.
A literature review was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and LILACS up to May 2024, using terms related to severe asthma and discontinuation of biologic therapies. Studies evaluating asthma control after dose reduction or withdrawal of biologic treatment were included, considering outcomes such as exacerbations, lung function, and inflammatory biomarkers.
Of the 2494 studies identified, 23 articles were included after full-text review. Discontinuation of tezepelumab led to a gradual loss of clinical control in most patients, although baseline levels of inflammation were not reached. Regarding mepolizumab, 59% of patients experienced at least 1 significant exacerbation within the first year after withdrawal, suggesting the need for prolonged use. For omalizumab, results were heterogeneous: 67% of patients who continued treatment remained exacerbation-free, compared to 47.7 of those who discontinued it. Studies that implemented gradual tapering strategies showed higher success rates in discontinuation without loss of clinical control.
Evidence suggests that discontinuation of biologic therapy should be individualized, and a minimum treatment duration of 5 years may be appropriate before considering withdrawal. Optimal candidates include those with sustained clinical control, stable lung function, suppressed inflammatory biomarkers, and no need for oral corticosteroids. Gradual decreasing strategies may optimize treatment withdrawal while minimizing the risk of relapse.
重度哮喘的特点是尽管使用了高剂量吸入性糖皮质激素和长效支气管扩张剂,但疾病控制效果仍不佳。生物疗法彻底改变了其治疗方式,使一些患者实现了缓解。然而,关于最佳治疗持续时间和最安全的停药策略仍存在不确定性。本研究回顾了有关重度哮喘缓解期患者停用生物疗法的现有证据,评估了他们的临床结局。
截至2024年5月,在PubMed、EMBASE、Epistemonikos和LILACS中进行了文献综述,使用了与重度哮喘和生物疗法停药相关的术语。纳入了评估生物治疗剂量减少或停药后哮喘控制情况的研究,考虑了如病情加重、肺功能和炎症生物标志物等结局。
在检索到的2494项研究中,经过全文审查后纳入了23篇文章。大多数患者停用tezepelumab后临床控制逐渐丧失,尽管未达到炎症基线水平。对于美泊利珠单抗,59%的患者在停药后的第一年内至少经历了1次严重病情加重,这表明需要延长使用时间。对于奥马珠单抗,结果存在异质性:继续治疗的患者中有67%无病情加重,而停药的患者中这一比例为47.7%。实施逐渐减量策略的研究在停药且不丧失临床控制方面显示出更高的成功率。
有证据表明,生物疗法的停药应个体化,在考虑停药前,至少5年的治疗持续时间可能是合适的。最佳候选者包括那些具有持续临床控制、稳定肺功能、炎症生物标志物受到抑制且无需口服糖皮质激素的患者。逐渐减量策略可能会优化治疗停药,同时将复发风险降至最低。