What to do when your adult patient with severe asthma does not respond to a biologic
Background:
Asthma management has been revolutionized by the introduction and expansion of biologic therapies. Since the approval of omalizumab for allergic asthma in 2003, six additional biologics with an asthma indication have been FDA-approved, and several more are in late-phase development. The clinical challenge is that all of these therapies reduce exacerbations, but asthma exacerbations are difficult to predict. A subgroup of 20‐40% of biologic-treated patients will achieve asthma remission, or near remission depending on the criteria used, during biologic therapy, an ideal outcome. For the remaining 60‐80% of treated patients, the benefits are evident but usually less defined or quantifiable. Symptoms often improve, but patient-reported outcomes lack precision to verify efficacy. All biologic therapies reduce exacerbations by an average of 50%; they do not eliminate exacerbations for most patients. In long-term, unblinded, safety trials, the majority of treated subjects have zero to one exacerbation per year. Thus, for an individual patient, assessing response and predicting response can be problematic, and strategies for addressing suboptimal responses are not standardized.
Methods:
This article summarizes a potential approach to use when biologic therapy in adults with asthma is, or appears to be, insufficiently effective.
Results:
The major points are: 1) set expectations prior to therapy to facilitate decision making and do not expect remission or near remission depending on criteria used; 2) reassess the source of symptoms and findings with the possibility that the asthma diagnosis is not accurate or co-morbidities are the major contributors to the clinical presentation; 3) evaluate adherence with both small molecule therapy (i.e. inhaled controller therapy) and with the biologic regimen if administered in-home; 4) change the biologic to an alternative biologic, generally affecting a different pathway.
Conclusions:
This strategy is not a guarantee of success but may assist in clinical decision-making.
Asthma management has been revolutionized by the introduction and expansion of biologic therapies. Since the approval of omalizumab for allergic asthma in 2003, six additional biologics with an asthma indication have been FDA-approved, and several more are in late-phase development. The clinical challenge is that all of these therapies reduce exacerbations, but asthma exacerbations are difficult to predict. A subgroup of 20‐40% of biologic-treated patients will achieve asthma remission, or near remission depending on the criteria used, during biologic therapy, an ideal outcome. For the remaining 60‐80% of treated patients, the benefits are evident but usually less defined or quantifiable. Symptoms often improve, but patient-reported outcomes lack precision to verify efficacy. All biologic therapies reduce exacerbations by an average of 50%; they do not eliminate exacerbations for most patients. In long-term, unblinded, safety trials, the majority of treated subjects have zero to one exacerbation per year. Thus, for an individual patient, assessing response and predicting response can be problematic, and strategies for addressing suboptimal responses are not standardized.
Methods:
This article summarizes a potential approach to use when biologic therapy in adults with asthma is, or appears to be, insufficiently effective.
Results:
The major points are: 1) set expectations prior to therapy to facilitate decision making and do not expect remission or near remission depending on criteria used; 2) reassess the source of symptoms and findings with the possibility that the asthma diagnosis is not accurate or co-morbidities are the major contributors to the clinical presentation; 3) evaluate adherence with both small molecule therapy (i.e. inhaled controller therapy) and with the biologic regimen if administered in-home; 4) change the biologic to an alternative biologic, generally affecting a different pathway.
Conclusions:
This strategy is not a guarantee of success but may assist in clinical decision-making.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: March 1, 2026
- Allergy and Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists.
The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma and by having the potential to directly impact the quality of patient care. AAP welcomes the submission of original works including peer-reviewed original research and clinical trial results. Additionally, as the official journal of the Eastern Allergy Conference (EAC), AAP will publish content from EAC poster sessions as well as review articles derived from EAC lectures.
Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.
Articles marked "F" offer free full text for personal noncommercial use only.
The journal is indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science and Science Citation Index Expanded, plus the National Library of Medicine's PubMed service. - Editorial Board
- Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Information for Advertisers
- Reprint Requests
- Commercial level: Permission to use content
- www.JFoodAllergy.com
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
Receive new issue alert- Access Key
- Free content
- Partial Free content
- New content
- Open access content
- Partial Open access content
- Subscribed content
- Partial Subscribed content
- Free trial content