Maria Staevska

Background : Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition in which biologic therapies targeting type 2 inflammation have substantially improved disease control. However, a proportion of patients fail to achieve a sustained response, necessitating biologic switching in routine clinical practice. Objective : Evaluate real-world patterns, clinical outcomes, and determinants of biologic switching in patients with severe asthma. Methods : This 15-year ambispective cohort study evaluated patients with severe asthma treated with biologic therapies between 2009 and 2025. Patients were classified as never-switchers or switchers. Clinical outcomes, exacerbation burden, oral corticosteroid use, lung function, and inflammatory biomarkers were assessed at baseline, 4/6 months, and 12 months. Comparative analyses were performed across cohorts. Results : Among 345 included patients, 116 (33.6%) underwent biologic switching. Inadequate clinical efficacy was the predominant reason for switching, frequently accompanied by persistent upper-airway comorbidities. Clinical improvement was observed following both initial biologic initiation and subsequent switching; however, patients requiring switching exhibited a higher residual disease burden and rarely achieved the level of disease control observed in stable patients. Early response at 4/6 months was informative for longer-term outcomes, and switching was safe. Conclusion : In real-world practice, biologic switching represents a common and clinically meaningful strategy in severe asthma. Early treatment response may assist in identifying patients requiring timely reassessment and individualized therapeutic optimization.

Approved on-demand treatments for hereditary angioedema attacks need to be administered parenterally, a route of administration that is associated with delays in treatment or withholding of therapy. In this phase 3, double-blind, three-way crossover trial, we randomly assigned participants at least 12 years of age with type 1 or type 2 hereditary angioedema to take up to two oral doses of sebetralstat (300 mg or 600 mg) or placebo for an angioedema attack. The primary end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the beginning of symptom relief, defined as a rating of "a little better" on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ratings range from "much worse" to "much better") at two or more consecutive time points within 12 hours after the first administration of the trial agent. Key secondary end points, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, were a reduction in attack severity (an improved rating on the Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGI-S] scale, with ratings ranging from "none" to "very severe") at two or more consecutive time points within 12 hours and complete attack resolution (a rating of "none" on the PGI-S scale) within 24 hours. A total of 136 participants were assigned to one of six trial sequences, with 110 treating 264 attacks. The time to the beginning of symptom relief with the 300-mg dose and the 600-mg dose was faster than with placebo (P12), respectively. The time to reduction in the attack severity with the 300-mg dose and the 600-mg dose was faster than with placebo (P = 0.004 and P = 0.003), with median times of 9.27 hours (interquartile range, 1.53 to >12), 7.75 hours (2.19 to >12), and more than 12 hours (6.23 to >12). The time to complete resolution was faster with the 300-mg and 600-mg doses than with placebo (P = 0.002 and P<0.001). The percentage of attacks with complete resolution within 24 hours was 42.5% with the 300-mg dose, 49.5% with the 600-mg dose, and 27.4% with placebo. Sebetralstat and placebo had similar safety profiles; no serious adverse events related to the trial agents were reported. Oral sebetralstat provided faster times to the beginning of symptom relief, reduction in attack severity, and complete attack resolution than placebo. (Funded by KalVista Pharmaceuticals; KONFIDENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05259917; EudraCT number, 2021-001226-21.).

Hereditary angioedema is a rare disease that can often be disabling or even life threatening because of the unpredictable, self-limiting, and localized swelling episodes involving cutaneous, subcutaneous, and mucosal sites. The last decades revealed a spectrum of possibilities to control the disease through the development of effective therapies that changed the life of many patients and families worldwide. This review summarizes the current literature regarding the general management and therapeutic approach in patients with hereditary angioedema, both with and without C1 inhibitor deficiency. Medications already available in the market and new drugs in different research stages of development are addressed. Recent decades saw a huge leap in identifying mechanisms of angioedema and developing modern safe and effective medications to both treat acute angioedema manifestations and control disease activity via prophylactic therapy. Further improvement is still needed, together with improving global accessibility of diagnostic tools and effective medications. Whether novel drugs will demonstrate a sustained cost/effectiveness ratio will be answered in the years to come when we will witness whether a majority of the patients will benefit from these major advances.

Hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) is a rare autosomal dominant disease characterized by episodes of acute subcutaneous swelling, and/or recurrent severe abdominal pain. The disease is potentially fatal if the upper-airway is involved. Iatrogenic harm can occur if HAE is not considered in the differential diagnosis, the specialists are not aware of the natural history, diagnosis and treatment of HAE, or as a result of unnecessary surgical and other iatrogenic interventions. We present the case of a 72-year-old man who began suffering recurrent abdominal pain at the age of 8 years. The pain led to frequent emergency department visits, three emergency surgical interventions, and 5 endoscopies before C1-INH-HAE was diagnosed at the age of 70. Infrequent subcutaneous swellings were attributed to unknown allergic reactions that were not related to the primary diagnosis of abdominal pain. Family history was positive for recurrent abdominal pain and angioedema but was ignored until the propositus’ grandson developed recurrent severe oro-facial edema attacks. The boy’s mother searched the worldwide web and found educational materials on a patient association website. She suggested complement C4 and C1-INH testing that led to the appropriate diagnosis of C1-INH-HAE type 1 in her son and his grandfather. This report emphasizes the importance of accurately evaluating personal and family history in patients with a long history of recurrent, acute, severe but medically unexplained abdominal pain and cutaneous swellings. Here, the diagnosis of HAE was overlooked for 62 years and the focus on abdominal complaints led to numerous surgical interventions without consideration of the full differential diagnosis. Screening family members from all generations for unrecognized angioedema, abdominal pain, and measurement of C1-INH and C4 are essential for accurate and timely diagnosis of HAE.