Ferraro Valentina Agnese, Castaldo Raimondo Junior, Alfier Fiorenza, Amadi Margherita, Pertoldi Chiara, Tonazzo Valentina, Zanconato Stefania, Carraro Silvia
Unit of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, Women's and Children's Health Department, University Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Front Allergy. 2025 Aug 22;6:1672424. doi: 10.3389/falgy.2025.1672424. eCollection 2025.
Although the benefits of biologics in severe asthma are well established, the optimal strategy to discontinue therapy remains controversial.
to evaluate clinical, functional, and laboratory course of children and adolescents with severe asthma after biological therapy withdrawal due to sustained good control. Secondary aim was to identify clinical or inflammatory markers predictive of asthma control after discontinuation.
this retrospective study included patients 6-19 years with severe asthma followed at the University Hospital of Padua in whom a biologic therapy was discontinued after at least 24 months of treatment. Clinical (GINA, CASI, exacerbations), functional (spirometry), inflammatory (FeNO, IgE, eosinophils), pharmacological (ICS dosage), and quality-of-life (PAQLQ) data were collected over a 24-month follow-up.
twenty-three asthmatic patients (34.8% female) were included. 19 treated with Omalizumab, 3 Dupilumab, and 1 Mepolizumab. At withdrawal, all had well-controlled asthma (GINA and CASI 3). Clinical control scores, spirometry, PAQLQ remained stable overtime. No exacerbation increase was observed. One patient resumed biologic therapy. An increase in eosinophil counts was found in patients classified as not fully controlled at 24 months.
clinical and functional benefit of biologics may persist for up to 24 months after biologic withdrawal. After biologic discontinuation, most children maintained symptom control and good quality of life, suggesting that biologic therapy may be stopped in appropriately selected cases. At the same time a close follow-up, including assessment of clinical control, functional parameter and biomarkers, is needed to promptly identify signs associated with possible loss of control.
尽管生物制剂在重度哮喘治疗中的益处已得到充分证实,但停止治疗的最佳策略仍存在争议。
评估因病情持续良好控制而停用生物治疗后,重度哮喘儿童和青少年的临床、功能及实验室病程。次要目的是确定停用治疗后预测哮喘控制的临床或炎症标志物。
这项回顾性研究纳入了帕多瓦大学医院随访的6至19岁重度哮喘患者,这些患者在接受至少24个月的治疗后停用了生物治疗。在24个月的随访期间收集临床(全球哮喘防治创议(GINA)、儿童哮喘控制测试(CASI)、急性加重情况)、功能(肺功能测定)、炎症(呼出一氧化氮(FeNO)、免疫球蛋白E(IgE)、嗜酸性粒细胞)、药理学(吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)剂量)及生活质量(儿科哮喘生活质量问卷(PAQLQ))数据。
纳入23例哮喘患者(女性占34.8%)。19例接受奥马珠单抗治疗,3例接受度普利尤单抗治疗,1例接受美泊利单抗治疗。在停药时,所有患者的哮喘均得到良好控制(GINA和CASI 3级)。临床控制评分、肺功能测定、PAQLQ随时间保持稳定。未观察到急性加重情况增加。1例患者恢复了生物治疗。在24个月时被归类为未完全控制的患者中发现嗜酸性粒细胞计数增加。
生物制剂停用后,其临床和功能益处可能持续长达24个月。生物制剂停用后,大多数儿童维持了症状控制和良好的生活质量,这表明在适当选择的病例中可以停止生物治疗。同时,需要密切随访,包括评估临床控制、功能参数和生物标志物,以及时识别与可能的控制丧失相关的体征。