William W. Busse

Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose\ninduced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated\ninflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a\nglobal health problem that causes major illness and disability\nworldwide. Over 600 million patients from all\ncountries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from\nallergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and\nwork and its economic impact is substantial.\nRisk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified.\nIndoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational\nagents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases.\nThe role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably\nvery important, but has yet to be fully understood\nboth for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.\nIn 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on\nAsthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel\nproposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which\nwas subdivided into _intermittent_ or _persistent_ disease.\nThis classification is now validated.\nThe diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but\nin some cases it may cause problems and many patients\nare still under-diagnosed, often because they do not\nperceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing\ntheir social life, school and work.\nThe management of allergic rhinitis is well established\nand the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations\non evidence using an extensive review of the literature\navailable up to December 1999. The statements of\nevidence for the development of these guidelines followed\nWHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al.\nA large number of papers have been published since 2000\nand are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using\nthe same evidence-based system. Recommendations for\nthe management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the\nARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the\nfuture, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet\navailable.\nAnother important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was\nto consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and\nasthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often\nco-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these\nlinks have been confirmed.\nTheARIAdocument is not intended to be a standard-ofcare\ndocument for individual countries. It is provided as a\nbasis for physicians, health care professionals and\norganizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis\nand asthma in various countries to facilitate the\ndevelopment of relevant local standard-of-care documents\nfor patients.

RATIONALE: The Severe Asthma Research Program cohort includes subjects with persistent asthma who have undergone detailed phenotypic characterization. Previous univariate methods compared features of mild, moderate, and severe asthma. OBJECTIVES: To identify novel asthma phenotypes using an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. METHODS: Reduction of the initial 628 variables to 34 core variables was achieved by elimination of redundant data and transformation of categorical variables into ranked ordinal composite variables. Cluster analysis was performed on 726 subjects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five groups were identified. Subjects in Cluster 1 (n = 110) have early onset atopic asthma with normal lung function treated with two or fewer controller medications (82%) and minimal health care utilization. Cluster 2 (n = 321) consists of subjects with early-onset atopic asthma and preserved lung function but increased medication requirements (29% on three or more medications) and health care utilization. Cluster 3 (n = 59) is a unique group of mostly older obese women with late-onset nonatopic asthma, moderate reductions in FEV(1), and frequent oral corticosteroid use to manage exacerbations. Subjects in Clusters 4 (n = 120) and 5 (n = 116) have severe airflow obstruction with bronchodilator responsiveness but differ in to their ability to attain normal lung function, age of asthma onset, atopic status, and use of oral corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Five distinct clinical phenotypes of asthma have been identified using unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. All clusters contain subjects who meet the American Thoracic Society definition of severe asthma, which supports clinical heterogeneity in asthma and the need for new approaches for the classification of disease severity in asthma.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways. PURPOSE: The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older. METHODS: A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures. RESULTS: The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge about the multiple domains of asthma and asthma control, no single outcome measure can adequately assess asthma control. Its assessment in clinical trials and in clinical practice should include components relevant to both of the goals of asthma treatment, namely achievement of best possible clinical control and reduction of future risk of adverse outcomes. Recommendations are provided for the assessment of asthma control in clinical trials and clinical practice, both at baseline and in the assessment of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force recommendations provide a basis for a multicomponent assessment of asthma by clinicians, researchers, and other relevant groups in the design, conduct, and evaluation of clinical trials, and in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a fully human anti-interleukin-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody that blocks both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling. We assessed its efficacy and safety in patients with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: in patients with a blood eosinophil count of 300 or more per cubic millimeter. Asthma control and dupilumab safety were also assessed. RESULTS: had increased by 0.32 liters in patients assigned to the lower dose of dupilumab (difference vs. matched placebo, 0.14 liters; P<0.001); similar results were seen with the higher dose. Among patients with a blood eosinophil count of 300 or more per cubic millimeter, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.48) among those receiving lower-dose dupilumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.38) among those receiving a matched placebo (65.8% lower rate with dupilumab than with placebo; 95% CI, 52.0 to 75.6); similar results were observed with the higher dose. Blood eosinophilia occurred after the start of the intervention in 52 patients (4.1%) who received dupilumab as compared with 4 patients (0.6%) who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, patients who received dupilumab had significantly lower rates of severe asthma exacerbation than those who received placebo, as well as better lung function and asthma control. Greater benefits were seen in patients with higher baseline levels of eosinophils. Hypereosinophilia was observed in some patients. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02414854 .).