Background: Airway mucus plugging is a key but long-overlooked mechanism of persistent airflow obstruction in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Type 2 (T2) cytokines, particularly interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, drive goblet cell metaplasia, MUC5AC overexpression, and impaired mucociliary clearance, while eosinophil-derived products increase mucus viscosity and promote plug persistence. Methods: A comprehensive narrative review was conducted by searching PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to February 2026. Search terms included “mucus plugs,” “mucus plugging,” “biologics,” “dupilumab,” “tezepelumab,” “mepolizumab,” “benralizumab,” “IL-4,” “IL-13,” “MUC5AC,” “quantitative CT,” “functional respiratory imaging,” “asthma,” and “COPD.” Studies were included if they reported original data or systematic evidence on mucus plug quantification, biologic-mediated changes in mucus plug scores, or imaging modalities for mucus assessment in asthma or COPD. Editorials, case reports with fewer than three patients, and studies not available in English were excluded. Two authors (P.-V.M. and A.C.) independently screened titles and abstracts; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and preclinical studies evaluating mucus plug outcomes and T2-targeted therapies were included. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched for additional relevant publications. Results: A recent systematic review identified multiple randomized controlled trials and observational studies that showed CT-assessed mucus plug scores go down with biologic therapies targeting the T2 pathway in asthma. Observational data extend this evidence to anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα agents. The VESTIGE trial provided the first functional respiratory imaging evidence of mucus plug resolution with dupilumab. In COPD, the BOREAS/NOTUS and MATINEE trials established the efficacy of dupilumab and mepolizumab in eosinophilic phenotypes; however, differences in inclusion criteria—particularly regarding FeNO thresholds and prior exacerbation burden—may explain divergent effects on lung function endpoints. Mucus plug outcomes have not been evaluated in COPD biologic trials. Quantitative imaging modalities, including HRCT mucus plug scoring, functional respiratory imaging, and hyperpolarized gas MRI, now enable objective assessment of mucus burden. Conclusions: Mucus plugging meets the definition of a treatable trait: it can be measured with CT scoring, it matters clinically, and it responds to T2 cytokine blockade. Adding mucus plug assessment to routine clinical evaluation, together with mucolytic strategies where needed, could move treatment decisions from empirical to biology-based across the asthma–COPD spectrum. Further studies are needed to confirm that mucus plug scoring works as a biomarker of treatment response in COPD and to test whether combining biologics with mucolytics improves outcomes.
Mari et al. (Tue,) studied this question.