The pace of advance in the scientific description of the immunopathogenesis of asthma has spurred the development of many new therapies that target different sites in the immune cascade. Beyond the monoclonal antibodies directed against cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-13) already reviewed (Table 20–1), these include antagonists of cell adhesion molecules, protease inhibitors, and immunomodulators aimed at shifting CD4 lymphocytes from the Th2 to the Th1 subtype or at selective inhibition of the subset of Th2 lymphocytes directed against particular antigens. As these new therapies are developed, it will become increasingly important to identify biomarkers of specific phenotypes of asthma that are most likely to benefit from specific therapies. This will enable truly personalized asthma therapy.
National and international guidelines for asthma emphasize the need for adjusting the intensity of asthma therapy to the underlying severity of the disease and the level of control achieved by the patient’s current treatment (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/ health-pro/guidelines/current/asthma-guidelines; ginasthma.org). An underlying principle common to these guidelines is that asthma should be considered in two time domains. In the present domain, asthma is important for the symptoms and impairments it causes—cough, nocturnal awakenings, and shortness of breath that interfere with the ability to exercise or to pursue desired activities. For mild asthma, occasional inhalation of a bronchodilator may be all that is needed to control these symptoms. For more severe asthma, treatment with a long-term controller, like an ICS, is necessary to relieve symptoms and restore function. The second domain of asthma is the risk it presents of future events, such as exacerbations or progressive loss of pulmonary function. Satisfaction with the ability to control symptoms and maintain function by frequent use of an inhaled β2 agonist does not mean that the risk of future events is also controlled. In fact, use of two or more canisters of an inhaled β agonist per month is a marker for increased risk of asthma fatality.
The challenges of assessing severity and adjusting therapy for these two domains of asthma are different. For relief of distress in the present domain, the key information is obtained by asking specific questions about the frequency and severity of symptoms, the frequency of rescue use of an inhaled β agonist, the frequency of nocturnal awakenings, and the ability to exercise, and by measuring lung function with spirometry. The best predictor of the risk for future exacerbations is the frequency and severity of their occurrence in the past. Without such a history, estimation of risk is more difficult. In general, patients with poorly controlled symptoms have a heightened risk of exacerbations in the future, but some patients seem unaware of the severity of their airflow obstruction (sometimes described as “poor perceivers”) and can be identified only by measurement of pulmonary function. Reductions in the FEV1 correlate with heightened risk of future attacks of asthma. Other possible markers of heightened risk are unstable pulmonary function (large variations in FEV1 from visit to visit, large change with bronchodilator treatment), extreme bronchial reactivity, high numbers of eosinophils in blood or sputum, and high levels of nitric oxide in exhaled air. Assessment of these features may identify patients who need increases in therapy for protection against future exacerbations.
Bronchodilators, such as inhaled albuterol, are rapidly effective, safe, and inexpensive. Patients with only occasional symptoms of asthma require no more than an inhaled bronchodilator taken on an as-needed basis. If symptoms require this “rescue” therapy more than twice a week, if nocturnal symptoms occur more than twice a month, or if the FEV1 is less than 80% of predicted, additional treatment is needed. The treatment first recommended is a low dose of an ICS, although a leukotriene receptor antagonist may be used as an alternative.