Omalizumab Effectiveness by Biomarker Status in Patients with Asthma: Evidence From PROSPERO, A Prospective Real-World Study

Response to Omalizumab as an Add-On Therapy in the Treatment of Allergic Asthma in Adult Chinese Patients-A Retrospective Study

(a) Background: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE humanized monoclonal antibody marketed in China for the conventional treatment of poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of omalizumab, but the data from studies in actual clinical treatment are still relatively limited. (b) Methods: Thirty-two patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab on the basis of ICS-LABA (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonist) were selected. Clinical characteristics before and after treatment were collected to analyze the relationship between changes in serum total IgE levels and peripheral blood EOS (eosinophil) levels, FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), PEF (peak expiratory flow), OCS (oral glucocorticoid) dosage, ATC (asthma control test) score, and the number of acute exacerbations and the treatment response, in order to observe the efficacy of omalizumab in addition to primary therapy, and to investigate whether baseline clinical characteristics such as serum total IgE and EOS levels could predict a treatment response. (c) Results: Using the ACT score as an evaluation, 68.75% of patients benefited from omalizumab treatment at the end of 16 weeks. The response group has a reduction in OCS dosage (p-values of 0.026 and 0.039), a significant reduction in ACT scores (both p < 0.001), and a reduction in the number of acute exacerbations (p = 0.034 and 0.025, respectively) after omalizumab treatment. The binary logistics analysis of factors affecting the effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of allergic asthma were total serum IgE and the presence of comorbidities (p-values of 0.039 and 0.046, respectively). (d) Conclusions: Combining omalizumab with ICS-LABA for 16 weeks significantly improves asthma symptoms in Chinese adults and can be used as an add-on treatment. In addition, high serum IgE levels and the presence of comorbidities were predictors of its therapeutic efficacy.

Biologics and airway remodeling in severe asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease resulting in airflow obstruction, which in part can become irreversible to conventional therapies, defining the concept of airway remodeling. The introduction of biologics in severe asthma has led in some patients to the complete normalization of previously considered irreversible airflow obstruction. This highlights the need to distinguish a "fixed" airflow obstruction due to structural changes unresponsive to current therapies, from a "reversible" one as demonstrated by lung function normalization during biological therapies not previously obtained even with high-dose systemic glucocorticoids. The mechanisms by which exposure to environmental factors initiates the inflammatory responses that trigger airway remodeling are still incompletely understood. Alarmins represent epithelial-derived cytokines that initiate immunologic events leading to inflammatory airway remodeling. Biological therapies can improve airflow obstruction by addressing these airway inflammatory changes. In addition, biologics might prevent and possibly even revert "fixed" remodeling due to structural changes. Hence, it appears clinically important to separate the therapeutic effects (early and late) of biologics as a new paradigm to evaluate the effects of these drugs and future treatments on airway remodeling in severe asthma.

Real-world effectiveness of omalizumab for severe allergic asthma treatment in Colombia

Background

The allergic phenotype is responsible for more than 50% of severe asthma cases. In a stepwise approach, add-on treatments such as anti-IgE are used for severe allergic asthma (SAA). This study was aimed to describe the real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in adult and pediatric patients with SAA in Colombia.

Methods

This was an observational, non-interventional, retrospective study. Data from patients with SAA that received at least one month of treatment with omalizumab was obtained from medical records at eight sites in Colombia. Time-zero (t − 0) was defined as the date of initiation of omalizumab, and data was gathered for a 12-month period before t − 0 and a 12-month period after t − 0. Clinical outcomes, including exacerbations, were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness of omalizumab was evaluated in terms of the reduction of the risk of exacerbations (annualized rate).

Results

We included 143 patients with SAA. There was a decrease of 72.4% of the annualized rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations during the year after omalizumab (from 1.74 before to 0.48 after) with a substantial reduction of the risk of exacerbations by 56.7% (RR [95% CI] 0.43 [0.30–0.63] p < 0,001).

Conclusion

The use of omalizumab in Colombia as a treatment for SAA notably reduced the risk of clinically significant exacerbations. This study is the first to evaluate omalizumab real-life effectiveness in pediatric and adult patients in the country.

Human Lung Mast Cells: Therapeutic Implications in Asthma

Mast cells are strategically located in different compartments of the lung in asthmatic patients. These cells are widely recognized as central effectors and immunomodulators in different asthma phenotypes. Mast cell mediators activate a wide spectrum of cells of the innate and adaptive immune system during airway inflammation. Moreover, these cells modulate the activities of several structural cells (i.e., fibroblasts, airway smooth muscle cells, bronchial epithelial and goblet cells, and endothelial cells) in the human lung. These findings indicate that lung mast cells and their mediators significantly contribute to the immune induction of airway remodeling in severe asthma. Therapies targeting mast cell mediators and/or their receptors, including monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, IL-4/IL-13, IL-5/IL-5Rα, IL-4Rα, TSLP, and IL-33, have been found safe and effective in the treatment of different phenotypes of asthma. Moreover, agonists of inhibitory receptors expressed by human mast cells (Siglec-8, Siglec-6) are under investigation for asthma treatment. Increasing evidence suggests that different approaches to depleting mast cells show promising results in severe asthma treatment. Novel treatments targeting mast cells can presumably change the course of the disease and induce drug-free remission in bronchial asthma. Here, we provide an overview of current and promising treatments for asthma that directly or indirectly target lung mast cells.

Leukocyte redistribution as immunological biomarker of corticosteroid resistance in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Earlier studies have suggested that the leukocyte redistribution can be considered as an immunological marker of the clinical response to corticosteroids (CS), representing an easy measurable potential biomarker in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determinate the utility of the leukocyte redistribution as a biomarker of disease heterogeneity in patients with severe asthma and as a bioindicator of potential CS resistance.

METHODS

We developed an unbiased clustering approach based on the clinical data and the flow cytometry results of peripheral blood leukocyte phenotypes of 142 patients with severe asthma before and after systemic CS administration.

RESULTS

Based on the differences in the blood count eosinophils, neutrophils and lymphocytes, together with the flow cytometry measurements of basic T cell, B cell and NK cell subpopulations before and after systemic CS administration, we identified two severe asthma clusters, which differed in the cell frequencies, response to CS and atopy status. Patients in cluster 1 had higher frequency of blood eosinophils at baseline, were sensitized to less allergens and had better steroid responsiveness, measured as the pronounced leukocyte redistribution after the administration of systemic CS. Patients in cluster 2 were determined by the higher frequency of B-cells and stronger IgE sensitization status to the multiple allergens. They also displayed higher steroid resistance, as the clinical correlate for the lower leukocyte redistribution after administration of systemic CS.

CONCLUSION

The flow cytometry-based profiling of the basic populations of immune cells in the blood and its analysis before and after systemic corticosteroid administration could improve personalized treatment approaches in patients with severe asthma.

Challenges in severe asthma: Do we need new drugs or new biomarkers?

Severe asthma is a complex, heterogenous airway condition. There have been significant advances in severe asthma management in the past decade using monoclonal antibody therapies that target the inflammatory component of the disease. Patient selection has been paramount for the success of these biologicals, leading to significant interest in biomarkers to guide treatment. Some severe asthmatics remain suboptimally controlled despite trials of biologicals and many of these patients still require chronic systemic corticosteroids. New therapeutics are currently in development to address this unmet need. However, whether these patients could be better treated by using novel biomarkers that inform selection among currently available biologics, and that objectively measure disease control is unclear. In this review, we examine the currently used biomarkers that guide severe asthma management and emerging biomarkers that may improve asthma therapy in the future.

[Markers of severity and predictors of response to treatment in severe asthma]

Asthma is a multifactorial disease with complex pathophysiology. Knowledge of its immunopathology and inflammatory mechanisms is progressing and has led to the development over recent years of increasingly targeted therapeutic strategies. The objective of this review is to pinpoint the different predictive markers of asthma severity and therapeutic response. Obesity, nasal polyposis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and intolerance to aspirin have all been considered as clinical markers associated with asthma severity, as have functional markers such as bronchial obstruction, low FEV1, small daily variations in FEV1, and high FeNO. While sinonasal polyposis and allergic comorbidities are associated with better response to omalizumab, nasal polyposis or long-term systemic steroid use are associated with better response to antibodies targeting the IL5 pathway. Elevated total IgE concentrations and eosinophil counts are classic biological markers regularly found in severe asthma. Blood eosinophils are predictive biomarkers of response to anti-IgE, anti-IL5, anti-IL5R and anti-IL4R biotherapies. Dupilumab is particularly effective in a subgroup of patients with marked type 2 inflammation (long-term systemic corticosteroid therapy, eosinophilia≥150/μl or FENO>20 ppb). Chest imaging may help to identify severe patients by seeking out bronchial wall thickening and bronchial dilation. Study of the patient's environment is crucial insofar as exposure to tobacco, dust mites and molds, as well as outdoor and indoor air pollutants (cleaning products), can trigger asthma exacerbation. Wider and more systematic use of markers of severity or response to treatment could foster increasingly targeted and tailored approaches to severe asthma.

Switching from one biologic to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: An ANANKE study post hoc analysis

Background

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease driven by eosinophilic inflammation in the majority of cases. Despite biologic therapy patients may still be sub-optimally controlled, and the choice of the best biologic is a matter of debate. Indeed, switching between biologics is common, but no official guidelines are available and real-world data are limited.

Materials and methods

In this post hoc analysis of the Italian, multi-center, observational, retrospective study, ANANKE. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab were divided in two groups based on history of previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced [suboptimal response] vs naïve). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment. Change over time in blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use following benralizumab initiation were collected in the two groups.

Results

A total of 147 biologic-naïve and 58 biologic-experienced (34 omalizumab, 19 mepolizumab, and 5 omalizumab-mepolizumab) patients were enrolled. Biologic-experienced patients were more likely to be atopic and have a higher AER despite more frequent OCS use. Similar reductions in AER (&gt;90% in both groups), OCS use (≥49% reduction in dosage and ≥41% able to eliminate OCS), ACT improvement (≥7 points gained in 48 weeks) and lung function (≥300 mL of FEV1 improvement in 48 weeks) were observed after benralizumab introduction within the two groups. There were no registered discontinuations of benralizumab for safety reasons.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, patients who were switched to benralizumab because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to be atopic and more often treated with omalizumab. Benralizumab is effective in both naïve patients and those previously treated with a biologic.

Allergic Asthma in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Allergic asthma is the most common asthma phenotype and is characterized by IgE sensitization to airborne allergens and subsequent typical asthmatic symptoms after exposure. A form of type 2 (T2) airway inflammation underlies allergic asthma. It usually arises in childhood and is accompanied by multimorbidity presenting with the occurrence of other atopic diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis. Diagnosis of the allergic endotype is based on in vivo (skin prick tests) and/or in vitro (allergen-specific IgE levels, component-resolved diagnosis (CRD)) documentation of allergic sensitization. Biomarkers identifying patients with allergic asthma include total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and serum eosinophil counts. The treatment of allergic asthma is a complex procedure and requires a patient-tailored approach. Besides environmental control involving allergen avoidance measurements and cornerstone pharmacological interventions based on inhaled drugs, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) and biologics are now at the forefront when it comes to personalized management of asthma. The current review aims to shed light on the distinct phenotype of allergic asthma, ranging over its current definition, clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and biomarkers, as well as its treatment options in the era of precision medicine.

Investigational approaches for unmet need in severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Molecular antibodies (mAb) targeting inflammatory mediators are effective in T2-high asthma. The recent approval of Tezepelumab presents a novel mAb therapeutic option to those with T2-low asthma.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss a number of clinical problems pertinent to severe asthma which are less responsive to current therapies, such as persistent airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness. We discuss selected investigational approaches, including a number of candidate therapies under investigation in two adaptive platform trials currently in progress, with particular reference to this unmet need, as well as their potential in phenotypes such as neutrophilic asthma and obese asthma, which may or may not overlap with a T2-high phenotype.

EXPERT OPINION

The application of discrete targeting approaches to T2-low molecular phenotypes, including those phenotypes in which inflammation may not arise within the airway, has yielded variable results to date. Endotypes associated with T2-low asthma are likely to be diverse but await validation. Investigational therapeutic approaches must, likewise, be diverse if the goal of remission is to become attainable for all those living with asthma.

Documento de consenso de asma grave en adultos. Actualización 2022

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with several clinical variants and often represents a complex disease requiring a specialized and multidisciplinary approach, as well as the use of multiple drugs. The prevalence of severe asthma varies from one country to another, and it is estimated that 50% of these patients present a poor control of their disease. For the best management of the patient, it is necessary a correct diagnosis, an adequate follow-up and undoubtedly to offer the best available treatment, including biologic treatments with monoclonal antibodies. With this objective, this consensus process was born, which began in its first version in 2018, whose goal is to offer the patient the best possible management of their disease in order to minimize their symptomatology. For this 2020 consensus update, a literature review was conducted by the authors. Subsequently, through a two-round interactive Delphi process, a broad panel of asthma experts from SEPAR and the regional pulmonology societies proposed the recommendations and conclusions contained in this document.

Biologic Therapies in Pediatric Asthma

Undeniably, childhood asthma is a multifactorial and heterogeneous chronic condition widespread in children. Its management, especially of the severe form refractory to standard therapy remains challenging. Over the past decades, the development of biologic agents and their subsequent approval has provided an advanced and very promising treatment alternative, eventually directing toward a successful precision medicine approach. The application of currently approved add-on treatments for severe asthma in children, namely omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab have been shown to be effective in terms of asthma control and exacerbation rate. However, to date, information is still lacking regarding its long-term use. As a result, data are frequently extrapolated from adult studies. Thus, the selection of the appropriate biologic agent, the potential predictors of good asthma response, and the long-term outcome in the pediatric population are still to be further investigated. The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the current status of the latest evidence about all licensed monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that have emerged and been applied to the field of asthma management. The innovative future targets are also briefly discussed.

Characteristics, phenotypes, mechanisms and management of severe asthma

ABSTRACT

Severe asthma is "asthma which requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a second controller (and/or systemic corticosteroids) to prevent it from becoming 'uncontrolled' or which remains 'uncontrolled' despite this therapy." The state of control was defined by symptoms, exacerbations and the degree of airflow obstruction. Therefore, for the diagnosis of severe asthma, it is important to have evidence for a diagnosis of asthma with an assessment of its severity, followed by a review of comorbidities, risk factors, triggers and an assessment of whether treatment is commensurate with severity, whether the prescribed treatments have been adhered to and whether inhaled therapy has been properly administered. Phenotyping of severe asthma has been introduced with the definition of a severe eosinophilic asthma phenotype characterized by recurrent exacerbations despite being on high dose ICS and sometimes oral corticosteroids, with a high blood eosinophil count and a raised level of nitric oxide in exhaled breath. This phenotype has been associated with a Type-2 (T2) inflammatory profile with expression of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13. Molecular phenotyping has also revealed non-T2 inflammatory phenotypes such as Type-1 or Type-17 driven phenotypes. Antibody treatments targeted at the T2 targets such as anti-IL5, anti-IL5Rα, and anti-IL4Rα antibodies are now available for treating severe eosinophilic asthma, in addition to anti-immunoglobulin E antibody for severe allergic asthma. No targeted treatments are currently available for non-T2 inflammatory phenotypes. Long-term azithromycin and bronchial thermoplasty may be considered. The future lies with molecular phenotyping of the airway inflammatory process to refine asthma endotypes for precision medicine.

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab Treatment Over a 16-Year Follow-Up: When a Clinical Trial Meets Real-Life

Purpose

Treatment of severe asthma has made great strides thanks to rapid progress in understanding immune response and inflammatory pathways. This led to the advent of the first biologic for severe allergic asthma (SAA), omalizumab. Although the long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab has been confirmed, increasingly longer follow-up data can further reinforce this evidence and potentially provide new ones, for example on any loss of efficacy or the appearance of unexpected side effects. This study reports omalizumab treatment-related outcomes after 16 years of follow-up.

Patients and Methods

In this real-life retrospective study, an extension of a previous 9-year follow-up study on patients initially recruited in a clinical trial, we enrolled 8 adult patients with SAA followed-up from November 2005 to December 2021. Study subjects were selected based on omalizumab eligibility criteria.

Results

Exacerbation rate significantly decreased from 3.6 ± 2.1 events in year before index date to 0.1 ± 0.4 after 32 weeks of treatment (p < 0.0001). Mean annual number of mild-to-moderate exacerbations at 16 years was 0.88 compared with 1.8 in the year before the index date and 1.1 at 32 weeks. No hospitalizations were documented during the 16-year follow-up compared to 0.3 hospitalizations/patient in the year before the index date. Respiratory function also progressively and significantly improved. Regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs), The AQLQ and ACT significantly improved from baseline throughout the follow-up, particularly up to 9 years of follow-up. During the study, an overall reduction in doses of asthma medications was observed, with a significant OCS-sparing effect.

Conclusion

Our study, the longest clinical follow-up on patients treated with anti-IgE, confirms and amplifies the results of the studies carried out so far, as they are maintained over a very long interval of time without drops in efficacy without any type of side effect.

Clinical response to biologics for severe asthma: any relevance for sex in different age ranges?

Background

Whether sex can influence the clinical response to biological treatment in patients with severe asthma has not been fully addressed.

Aims and methods

The aim of this study was to investigate in patients with severe asthma undergoing biological treatment the individual evolution of lung function measurements and patient-reported asthma control scores over a 12-month follow-up period, in relation to patients’ sex, in different age ranges. Second, the change in the administered dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) before and after 12 months of treatment was investigated.

Results

64 patients (58% female and 42% male) with a median age of 52 years were enrolled in the study. There were no relevant differences between sexes in terms of lung function, patient-reported asthma control, exacerbation rate and daily OCS dose within the study timeframe. A separate sub-analysis by biological treatment confirmed the same finding. Stratifying individuals by age, we showed that older men had lower lung function parameter values (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) % predicted and FEV₁/forced vital capacity index) than older women, whereas an opposite trend was observed in terms of Asthma Control Test score. No other relevant differences were detected after age stratification.

Conclusion

According to our findings, sex does not act as a determinant of treatment response to biologicals in people with severe asthma. Although to be confirmed in larger studies, our data suggest that neither sex nor age should limit biological treatment prescription, once the eligibility criteria for that therapy are satisfied.

Sex does not seem to act as a determinant of treatment response to biologicals in severe asthma. Neither sex nor age should limit biological treatment prescription, once the eligibility criteria for that therapy are satisfied.https://bit.ly/370frEP

Treatment Resistance in Severe Asthma Patients With a Combination of High Fraction of Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Low Blood Eosinophil Counts

Background: Combining a fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and blood eosinophil count (B-EOS) may be a useful strategy for administration of biologics such as anti-IgE or anti-IL-5 to patients with type 2 inflammatory-predominant severe asthma and is important to be elucidated considering the increasing use of biologics.

Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed the clinical data from 114 adult patients with severe asthma, who were treated at Saitama Medical University Hospital. The eligible patients were stratified into four subgroups defined by thresholds of FeNO and blood eosinophil (B-EOS) counts to detect sputum eosinophilia, using the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. A total of 75 patients with optimal samples were stratified into four subtypes defined by thresholds of sputum eosinophilia and neutrophilia. Clinical characteristics, pattern of biologics, and distribution of sputum subtypes were analyzed in the stratified subclasses according to the FeNO and B-EOS thresholds. The asthma exacerbation (AE)-free time of the FeNO/B-EOS subgroups and any biologics treatment including anti-IgE or anti-IL-5 use were examined using the Kaplan–Meier method. The hazard ratios (HRs) for AE-free time were examined using the Cox proportional hazard model.

Results: The optimal cutoff values for prediction of sputum eosinophilia were defined as ≥2.7% wherein for FeNO as ≥27 ppb and B-EOS as ≥265/µL were considered. The high-FeNO subgroups showed significant high total IgE, compared with the low FeNO. The high-FeNO/high-B-EOS and the high-FeNO/low-B-EOS subgroups showed the largest prevalence of mepolizumab and benralizumab use among the other FeNO/B-EOS, respectively. The high-FeNO/low-B-EOS showed the largest frequency of AEs, high HR, and the shortest AE-free time, among the other FeNO/B-EOS. The sputum eosinophil-predominant subtype was the great majority in the high FeNO/high B-EOS. A diverse distribution of sputum leukocyte-predominant subtype was observed in the other FeNO/B-EOS. The subsequent AE-free time and its HR were comparable among the biologics use groups.

Conclusion: The strategy of classifying severe asthma based on the combination of FeNO and B-EOS proposes particular refractory type 2 severe asthma and underlying airway inflammation as a feasible trait for optimal biologics use.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

Asthma is a disease with high incidence and prevalence, and its severe form accounts for approximately 10% of asthmatics. Over the last decade, the increasing knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the disease allowed the development of biological drugs capable of sufficiently controlling symptoms and reducing the use of systemic steroids. The best-known mechanisms are those pertaining to type 2 inflammation, for which drugs were developed and studied. Those biological treatments affect crucial points of bronchial inflammation. Among the mechanisms explored, there were IgE (Omalizumab), interleukin 5 (Mepolizumab and Reslizumab), interleukin 5 receptor alpha (Benralizumab) and interleukin 4/13 receptor (Dupilumab). Under investigation and expected to be soon commercialized is the monoclonal antibody blocking the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (Tezepelumab). Seemingly under study and promising, are anti-interleukin-33 (itepekimab) and anti-suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 (astegolimab). With this study, we want to provide an overview of these drugs, paying particular attention to their mechanism of action, the main endpoints reached in clinical trials, the main results obtained in real life and some unclear points regarding their usage.

Holy Grail: the journey towards disease modification in asthma

At present, there is no cure for asthma, and treatment typically involves therapies that prevent or reduce asthma symptoms, without modifying the underlying disease. A “disease-modifying” treatment can be classed as able to address the pathogenesis of a disease, preventing progression or leading to a long-term reduction in symptoms. Such therapies have been investigated and approved in other indications, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis and immunoglobulin E-mediated allergic disease. Asthma's heterogeneous nature has made the discovery of similar therapies in asthma more difficult, although novel therapies (e.g. biologics) may have the potential to exhibit disease-modifying properties. To investigate the disease-modifying potential of a treatment, study design considerations can be made, including: appropriate end-point selection, length of trial, age of study population (key differences between adults/children in physiology, pathology and drug metabolism) and comorbidities in the patient population. Potential future focus areas for disease-modifying treatments in asthma include early assessments (e.g. to detect patterns of remodelling) and interventions for patients genetically susceptible to asthma, interventions to prevent virally induced asthma and therapies to promote a healthy microbiome. This review explores the pathophysiology of asthma, the disease-modifying potential of current asthma therapies and the direction future research may take to achieve full disease remission or prevention.

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous disease, which currently has no cure; this review explores the disease-modifying potential of asthma therapies and the direction future research may take to achieve disease remission or prevention.https://bit.ly/31AxYou

Omalizumab and IgE in the Control of Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab, a human immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 antibody against IgE, is a therapeutic agent for bronchial asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines indicate that the use of omalizumab should be considered as an option in step 5 of treatment for patients with the most severe type of bronchial asthma. In patients with atopic asthma who are at a high risk of exacerbation, and in whom symptoms are poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, omalizumab is one of the few drugs that improves symptoms, reduces the risk of exacerbation, and improves the quality of life while offering a high level of safety. On the other hand, the associated treatment costs are high, and there are no clear methods to identify responders. A recent study suggested that evaluating the therapeutic effects and monitoring the pharmacokinetics of omalizumab could improve the success of omalizumab therapy. This review outlines the relationship between IgE-targeted therapy and the serum level of IgE to enhance the current understanding of the mechanism of omalizumab therapy. It also describes the clinical significance of measuring serum free IgE levels and monitoring omalizumab therapy.

Allergic and eosinophilic asthma in the era of biomarkers and biologics: similarities, differences and misconceptions

OBJECTIVE

Severe asthma is associated with substantial personal and economic burden; maintaining disease control is the key management goal. Increased understanding of asthma heterogeneity and development of type 2 (T2)-targeting biologics has substantially advanced disease management and outcomes; however, despite both being driven by T2 inflammation, allergic and eosinophilic asthma have different treatment recommendations. We sought to better understand the similarities and differences between allergic and eosinophilic asthma and highlight where misconceptions may arise.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles, pivotal trials, post hoc analyses, and asthma clinical guidelines sourced from PubMed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Sources reporting allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications, disease mechanisms, and biomarkers associated with treatment response.

RESULTS

This review highlights that severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma are both driven by T2 inflammation with eosinophils playing a cardinal role. Despite this overlap, treatment recommendations differ based on asthma classification. T2 cytokine gene expression is a reasonably well-established research tool, but not a well-established biomarker in clinical practice, unlike blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and immunoglobulin E; the clinical relevance of immunoglobulin E as a predictive biomarker remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

Asthma classifications that can be easily characterized at patient level to ensure accurate diagnosis, predict disease trajectory, and treatment response are required. The current dichotomy of allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications is likely too simplistic, given the similar eosinophil-mediated disease pathophysiology in both classifications. Our results provide future directions to guide clinically meaningful interpretation of asthma endophenotypes, which may improve understanding of severe asthma characterization and aid future advances in defining responders more precisely with personalized medicine approaches.

FeNO in Asthma

Asthma is a common disease affecting 350 million people worldwide, which is characterized by airways inflammation and hyperreactivity. Historically diagnosis and treatment have been mainly based on symptoms, which have the potential to result in misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Nitric oxide (NO) is exhaled in human breath and is a marker of airways inflammation. Levels of NO are increased in the exhaled breath of patients with type 2 asthma and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) provides an objective biomarker of airway inflammation. FeNO testing is an accessible, noninvasive, and easy-to-use test. Cut-off values have been established by the American Thoracic Society (ATS), the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) but vary between guidance. FeNO levels have been shown to be predictive of blood and sputum eosinophil levels but should not be used in isolation and current guidance emphasizes the importance of incorporating clinical symptoms and testing when utilizing FeNO results. The inclusion of FeNO testing can increase diagnostic accuracy of asthma, while high levels in asthmatic patients can help predict response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and suppression of levels with ICS to monitor adherence. FeNO levels are also a predictor of asthma risk with increased exacerbation rates and accelerated decline in lung function associated with high levels as well as having an emerging role in predicting response to some biologic therapies in severe asthma. FeNO testing is cost-effective and has been shown, when combined with clinical assessment, to improve asthma management.

Use of biologics for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma: the age of personalized medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are multiple FDA-approved biologics to treat poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Given the heterogeneity of asthma and the lack of head-to-head data between biologics, selecting the best biologic for a patient can be difficult. This review summarizes the key literature to date, in hopes of facilitating an evidence-based approach to selecting the most appropriate biologic for patients with asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to unique mechanisms of action, there is increasing literature on predictors of response to each biologic, such as sensitizations to aeroallergens, peripheral eosinophil count, total serum IgE, and exhaled nitric oxide. Biologics available for asthma are also being increasingly studied in comorbid conditions with asthma, and this may facilitate selecting the most appropriate biologic for a patient. In the absence of head-to-head studies, there is literature of switching between biologics whenever necessary.

SUMMARY

The authors outline an approach to selecting a biologic based on various considerations, and hope this suggested approach facilitates selecting the biologic most suitable for each individual with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody that was globally approved as a personalized treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This review summarizes the knowledge of almost two decades of use of omalizumab to answer some important everyday clinical practice questions, concerning its efficacy and safety and its association with other asthma-related and drug-related parameters. Evidence suggests that omalizumab improves asthma control and reduces the incidence and frequency of exacerbations in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is also effective in those patients in reducing corticosteroid use and healthcare utilization, while it also seems to improve lung function. Several biomarkers have been recognized in predicting its efficacy in its target group of patients, while the optimal duration for evaluating its efficacy is between 16 and 32 weeks.

Predictors of a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Omalizumab Treatment in Adult Patients With Severe Allergic Asthma

Several factors have been found to be predictors of a good response following omalizumab treatment in patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA). However, it remains unclear whether clinical characteristics can predict a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following omalizumab treatment in this population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the features associated with an MCID following omalizumab treatment in adult patients with SAA. Of the 124 participants enrolled in this retrospective, cross-sectional study, 94, 103, 20 and 53 achieved the MCID following treatment with omalizumab and were considered to be responders of exacerbation reduction (no exacerbation during the 1-year follow-up period or ≧50% reduction in exacerbations from baseline), oral corticosteroid (OCS) sparing (no use of OCS to control asthma during the study period or a reduction of the monthly OCS maintenance dose to <50% of baseline), lung function (an increase of ≧230 ml in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s from baseline) and asthma control (an increase of ≧3 points in the asthma control test score from baseline), respectively. Normal weight [<25 vs. ≧30 kg/m², odds ratio (OR) = 3.86, p = 0.024] was predictive of a responder of reduction in exacerbations following omalizumab treatment while subjects with a blood eosinophil level of <300 cells/μL (<300 vs. ≧300 cells/μL, OR = 5.81, p = 0.001) were more likely to exhibit an MCID in OCS sparing. No factor was found to be a predictor of lung function or asthma control. When choosing treatment for adult patients with SAA, our findings may help to select those who may benefit the most from omalizumab treatment.

Severe pediatric asthma with a poor response to omalizumab: a report of three cases and three-dimensional bronchial wall analysis

Omalizumab is used for the treatment of persistent severe allergic asthma in adults and children. However, some patients remain symptomatic even after omalizumab treatment. In bronchial asthma, chronic inflammation of the bronchial wall causes thickening of the airway wall, resulting from irreversible airway remodeling. Progression of airway remodeling causes airflow obstruction, leading to treatment resistance. We report three Japanese children with severe asthma who had a poor response to omalizumab treatment. They had a long period of inadequate management of asthma before initiating omalizumab. Even after omalizumab treatment, their symptoms persisted, and the parameters of spirometry tests did not improve. We hypothesized that omalizumab was less effective in these patients because airway wall remodeling had already progressed. We retrospectively evaluated the bronchial wall thickness using a three-dimensional bronchial wall analysis with chest computed tomography. The bronchial wall thickness was increased in these cases compared with six responders. Progressed airway wall thickness caused by airway remodeling may be associated with a poor response to omalizumab in children with severe asthma.

Evolving Concept of Severe Asthma: Transition From Diagnosis to Treatable Traits

In recent decades, the concept of severe asthma has evolved from an umbrella term encompassing patients with high-intensity treatment needs to a clinical syndrome with heterogeneous, albeit distinct, pathophysiological processes. Biased and unbiased cluster approaches have been used to identify several clinical phenotypes. In parallel, cellular and molecular approaches allow for the development of biological therapies, especially targeting type 2 (T2) cytokine pathways. Although T2-biologics have significantly improved clinical outcomes for patients with severe asthma in real-world practice, questions on the proper use of biologics remain open. Furthermore, a subset of severe asthma patients remains poorly controlled. The unmet needs require a new approach. The “treatable traits” concept has been suggested to address a diversity of pathophysiological factors in severe asthma and overcome the limitations of existing treatment strategies. With a tailored therapy that targets the treatable traits in individual patients, better personalized medical care and outcomes should be achieved.

A Renewed Charter: Key Principles to Improve Patient Care in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a heterogenous respiratory disease, usually associated with chronic airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness, which affects an estimated 339 million people worldwide. Severe asthma affects approximately 5-10% of patients with asthma, approximately 17-34 million people globally, more than half of whom have uncontrolled disease. Severe asthma carries a substantial burden of disease, including unpredictable symptoms and potentially life-threatening flare-ups. Furthermore, severe asthma has a substantial burden on health care systems and economies worldwide. In 2018, a group of experts from the clinical community, patient support groups, and professional organisations joined together to develop the Severe Asthma Patient Charter, which set out six principles to define what patients should expect for the management of their severe asthma and what should constitute a basic standard of care. Since the publication of that original Charter in 2018, several important changes have occurred, including an improved understanding of asthma and effective asthma management; several new therapies have become available; and finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on respiratory conditions, the workforces that treat them, and the fundamental importance of health care system resilience. With those developments in mind, we, representatives of the academic, clinical, and patient advocacy group communities, have updated the Charter to Improve Patient Care in Severe Asthma with a focus on six principles: (1) I deserve a timely, comprehensive assessment of my asthma and its severity; (2) I deserve a timely, straightforward referral to an appropriate specialist for my asthma when it is not well controlled; (3) I deserve to understand what makes my asthma worse; (4) I deserve access to treatment and care that reduces the impact of asthma on my daily life; (5) I deserve not to be reliant on systemic corticosteroids; (6) I deserve to be involved in decisions about my treatment and care.

Utilizing Predictive Inflammatory Markers for Guiding the Use of Biologicals in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction. Up to ten percent of asthmatics have severe asthma, and many remain uncontrolled despite optimal medical management. With our increased understanding of the heterogeneity of asthma and its complex pathophysiology, several biomarkers have been developed and in the recent past, several biologic therapies for severe asthma have been developed and are now in widespread use. Although these biological agents have shown great benefit in treating severe asthma, not all patients respond equally well, and some do not derive any benefit. As much of the current literature of these medications have not assessed biomarkers or have used different cutoffs, it is often challenging to decide the best medication for an individual patient. Here, we review common asthma subtypes, current available biologic therapies for asthma, the clinical application of currently available type 2 biomarkers, as well as summarizing the evidence on how patient characteristics and biomarkers can help with choosing the optimal biologic for a patient that has the highest likelihood of success.

The use of biologics in personalized asthma care

INTRODUCTION

The role of biologic treatments in severe asthma continues to expand, with five agents now approved. Selection of biologic treatment has become increasingly complex in the setting of overlapping indications and in the absence of head-to-head trials. Long-term safety data are still limited for more recently approved agents.

AREAS COVERED

We review the evidence supporting the choice of biologic and predicting treatment response utilizing existing widely available biomarkers. In addition, we provide a digest of the long-term safety data currently available for agents approved since 2015. Data sources were identified by using PubMed in 2021.

EXPERT OPINION

We generally favor omalizumab in the first instance for those severe asthma patients also eligible for other biologics, due to the greater long-term safety data available for this agent. Clinical characteristics predicting response, treatment priorities, and comorbidities must also be considered.

Effective Management of Severe Asthma with Biologic Medications in Adult Patients: A Literature Review and International Expert Opinion

Severe asthma often remains uncontrolled despite effective treatments and evidence-based guidelines. A group of global experts in asthma and biologic medications from 9 countries considered the most relevant clinical variables to manage severe asthma in adult patients and guide treatment choice. The resulting recommendations address the investigation of biomarker levels (blood eosinophil count along with fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]), clinical features (oral corticosteroid [OCS] dependence, specific comorbid disease entities associated with severe type 2 asthma), and safety considerations. Current evidence suggests that biomarkers, including both blood or sputum eosinophil counts as well as FeNO, add prognostic and predictive value and should be measured in all patients with severe asthma. OCS use is an important factor in biologic selection, especially given the documented ability of some biologics to reduce OCS dependence. Comorbid diseases and relevant safety considerations to each biologic should also be considered. More data are needed to determine whether biomarker profiles identify patients suited to one biologic versus another as limited data support differential predictors of response. Further prospective head-to-head trials and post hoc analyses of clinical trial data are warranted. The authors believe that these recommendations have value as they offer expert opinion to assist health care providers in making difficult decisions regarding the quality of care in severe, type 2 asthma with biologic medications. They remain conditional and are based on limited data owing to a lack of head-to-head comparisons.

Strategies Targeting Type 2 Inflammation: From Monoclonal Antibodies to JAK-Inhibitors

Bronchial asthma and its frequent comorbidity chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), are characterized by an inflammatory process at lower and upper respiratory tract, with a variability in terms of clinical presentations (phenotypes) and distinct underpin pathophysiological mechanisms (endotypes). Based on the characteristics of inflammation, bronchial asthma can be distinguished into type 2 (eosinophilic) or nontype 2 (noneosinophilic) endotypes. In type 2 asthma endotype, the pathogenic mechanism is sustained by an inflammatory process driven by Th2 cells, type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2) and type 2 cytokines, which include interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-9 and IL-13. The definition of asthma and chronic rhinusinusitis phenotype/endotype is crucial, taking into account the availability of novel biologic agents, such as monoclonal antibodies targeting the classical type 2 cytokines. Recently, new therapeutic strategies have been proposed and analyzed in preliminary clinical trials. Among them Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, now largely used for the treatment of other chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel diseases, is receiving great relevance. The rationale of this strategy derives from the data that JAK is a tyrosine kinase involved in the signaling of T cell receptor and of several cytokines that play a role in allergic respiratory disease, such as IL-2, IL-4 and IL-9. In this review, we discuss whether treatment with biological agents and JAK inhibitors may be equally effective in controlling type 2 inflammatory process in both asthma and CRS.

Using FeNO Measurement in Clinical Asthma Management

Asthma is a common and heterogeneous disease, characterised by lower airway inflammation and airflow limitation. Critical factors in asthma management include establishing an accurate diagnosis and ensuring appropriate selection and dosage of anti-inflammatory therapies. The majority of asthma patients exhibit type 2 (T2) inflammation, with increased interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13 signalling, often with associated eosinophilia. Identifying lower airway eosinophilia with sputum induction improves asthma outcomes, but is time consuming and costly. Increased T2-inflammation leads to upregulation of nitric oxide (NO) release into the airway, with increasing fractional exhaled NO (FeNO) reflecting greater T2-inflammation. FeNO can be easily and quickly measured in the clinic, offering a point of care surrogate measure of the degree of lower airway inflammation. FeNO testing can be used to help confirm an asthma diagnosis, to guide inhaled corticosteroid therapy, to assess adherence to treatment, and to aid selection of appropriate biologic therapy. However, FeNO levels may also be influenced by a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors other than asthma, including nasal polyposis and cigarette smoking, and must be interpreted in the broader clinical context rather than viewed in isolation. This review discusses the clinical application of FeNO measurement in asthma care, from diagnosis to treatment selection, and describes its place in current international expert guidelines.

Strategies for choosing a biologic for your patient with allergy or asthma

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the therapeutic effects and safety of biologics either approved or in clinical development for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urticaria, nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. This review attempts to provide some guidance when choosing among agents.

DATA SOURCES

Recently published articles obtained through PubMed database searches including research articles, review articles, and case reports.

STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed database searches were conducted using the following keywords: biologics, asthma, COPD, urticaria, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

RESULTS

The approval of omalizumab by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 for patients with asthma paved the way for the development of multiple biologics for a variety of respiratory and allergic diseases. Agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration include mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, and several more are in the late stages of clinical development. Owing to the overlap in the pathogenesis of respiratory and allergic diseases, many of these biologics target multiple respiratory and allergic diseases simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

The numerous biologic options have made the selection of the best biologic for each patient a potential conundrum for clinicians. Adequate point of care biomarkers to facilitate personalized medical therapy are generally lacking. Furthermore, although clinically effective and generally safe, none of the biologics discussed in this review have induced long-standing disease remission. Nevertheless, these agents have given us the opportunity to treat the most severe patients and to better understand the biology of respiratory and allergic diseases. As knowledgeable physicians, we should embrace and be educated on these novel therapies and the pathways they target.

Biological therapies targeting the type 2 inflammatory pathway in severe asthma (Review)

Asthma is a variable chronic respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, bronchoconstriction, and mucus hypersecretion. While most patients with asthma achieve good control of the disease, 5-10% experience severe symptoms and recurrent exacerbation despite the maximal offered therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long acting bronchodilators. In previous years, novel biological therapies have become available, and various asthma phenotypes that are characterized by specific biomarkers have been identified. Currently approved biological agents target inflammatory molecules of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, and are effective at decreasing the frequency of asthma attacks, controlling symptoms and decreasing use of systemic steroids. The present study reviewed the effectiveness and safety profile of the currently approved biological drugs and provided an overview of the assessment of patients with severe asthma who are potentially suitable for biological therapy, in order to help clinicians to select the most appropriate biological agent.

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Evaluating Population Data in Allergy-Immunology

A population-level study is essential for understanding treatment effects, epidemiologic phenomena, and health care best practices. Evaluating large populations and associated data requires an analytic framework, which is commonly used by statisticians, epidemiologists, and data scientists. This document will serve to provide an overview of these commonly employed methods in allergy and immunology research. We will draw upon recent examples from the allergy-immunology literature to contextualize discrete principles of relevance to population-level analysis that include statistical features of a study population, elements of statistical inference, regression analysis, and an overview of machine learning practices. Our intent is to guide the reader through a practical description of this important quantitative discipline and facilitate greater understanding about data and result display in the medical literature.

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

The present prevailing inflammatory paradigm in asthma is of T2-high inflammation orchestrated by key inflammatory cells like Type 2 helper lymphocytes, innate lymphoid cells group 2 and associated cytokines. Eosinophils are key components of this T2 inflammatory pathway and have become key therapeutic targets. Real-world evidence on the predominant T2-high nature of severe asthma is emerging. Various inflammatory biomarkers have been adopted in clinical practice to aid asthma characterization including airway measures such as bronchoscopic biopsy and lavage, induced sputum analysis, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Blood measures like eosinophil counts have also gained widespread usage and multicomponent algorithms combining different parameters are now appearing. There is also growing interest in potential future biomarkers including exhaled volatile organic compounds, micro RNAs and urinary biomarkers. Additionally, there is a growing realisation that asthma is a heterogeneous state with numerous phenotypes and associated treatable traits. These may show particular inflammatory patterns and merit-specific management approaches that could improve asthma patient outcomes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma management but their use earlier in the course of disease is being advocated. Recent evidence suggests potential roles for ICS in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) for as needed use in mild asthma whilst maintenance and reliever therapy regimes have gained widespread acceptance. Other anti-inflammatory strategies including ultra-fine particle ICS, leukotriene receptor antagonists and macrolide antibiotics may show efficacy in particular phenotypes too. Monoclonal antibody biologic therapies have recently entered clinical practice with significant impacts on asthma outcomes. Understanding of the efficacy and use of those agents is becoming clearer with a growing body of real-world evidence as is their potential applicability to other treatable comorbid traits. In conclusion, the evolving understanding of T2 driven inflammation alongside a treatable traits disease model is enhancing therapeutic approaches to address inflammation in asthma.

Omalizumab in Asthma with Fixed Airway Obstruction: Post Hoc Analysis of EXTRA

BACKGROUND

Although asthma is typically characterized by bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR), fixed airflow obstruction (FAO) occurs in ∼50% of patients with severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

Do FAO/BDR associate with efficacy of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IgE?

METHODS

In EXTRA, patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β₂-agonists were randomized to omalizumab (n = 427) or placebo (n = 423) for 48 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, high/low BDR were defined as ≥12%/<12% increases in baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) after bronchodilator administration, respectively. FAO presence (+)/absence (-) were defined as baseline postbronchodilator FEV₁/forced vital capacity <70%/≥70%, respectively. Poisson regression/analysis of covariance models were used to estimate exacerbation relative rate reductions (RRRs)/least-squares mean changes in FEV₁, respectively.

RESULTS

In patients with high BDR, omalizumab reduced exacerbations more than placebo over the 48-week treatment period regardless of FAO status (RRR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: FAO+, 59.8% [17.7-80.4%]; FAO-, 44.3% [16.6-62.8%]). Omalizumab improved FEV₁ compared with placebo in the FAO-, high BDR subgroup (FEV₁ change from baseline [95% CI] for omalizumab vs placebo, 0.065 L [-0.071 to 0.201 L] to 0.236 L [0.112-0.359 L]) across 48 weeks. This was not observed in patients with low BDR, irrespective of FAO.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab was more efficacious than placebo at reducing exacerbations in patients with high, but not low, BDR, regardless of the presence of FAO. Lung function improvement primarily occurred in FAO-, high BDR patients, suggesting that asthma with low BDR may represent a difficult-to-treat phenotype.

Defining the Efficacy of Omalizumab in Nasal Polyposis: A POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 Subgroup Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a heterogeneous disease with variable underlying pathophysiologies. Numerous patient factors have been linked to differences in disease severity, control, and response to treatment, including asthma status, aspirin sensitivity, previous sinonasal surgery, and blood eosinophil levels.

OBJECTIVE

The present study examines the efficacy of the anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, versus placebo in patients with CRSwNP from the replicate POLYP 1 (NCT03280550) and POLYP 2 (NCT03280537) trials, grouped by inherent patient characteristics to determine the response to therapy.

METHODS

Patients in prespecified subgroups from POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 (studies pooled for analysis) were examined. Subgroups included blood eosinophil count at baseline (>300 or ≤300 cells/μL), previous sinonasal surgery (yes or no), asthma status (yes or no), and aspirin sensitivity status (yes or no). Subgroups were examined for subgroup-specific adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) (omalizumab-placebo) in change from baseline at week 24 in Nasal Congestion Score (NCS), Nasal Polyp Score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT).

RESULTS

Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) (omalizumab-placebo) in NCS, NPS, SNOT-22, TNSS, and UPSIT change from baseline at week 24 consistently favored omalizumab treatment over placebo in patients with blood eosinophil count >300 and ≤300 cells/μL, with or without previous sinonasal surgery, asthma, and aspirin sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Together, these data suggest broad efficacy of omalizumab across clinical and patient-reported outcomes in patients with CRSwNP, independent of the underlying patient factors examined, including those with high eosinophil levels and those who have undergone previous surgery, which are associated with high recurrence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: POLYP 1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03280550 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550); POLYP 2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03280537 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537).

Exacerbations in US Severe Asthma: Incidence, Characteristics, Predictors, and Effects of Biologic Treatments

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe asthma (SA) have a heightened risk of exacerbations, including hospitalization. The real-world, specialist-verified incidence and characteristics of exacerbations among patients with SA in the United States (US) have not been described.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the real-world incidence, characteristics, and predictors of exacerbations among patients with SA in the US.

METHODS

CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of specialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologic treatment or maintenance systemic corticosteroids (SCS), or uncontrolled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For patients enrolled February 2018 to February 2020, annualized rates and characteristics of exacerbation-related events were summarized by treatment category for 12 months before enrollment and after enrollment through the latest data collection. Results were further analyzed for subgroups of interest.

RESULTS

Among 1884 enrolled patients, 53.5% and 12.3% experienced an exacerbation and asthma hospitalization, respectively (0.81 and 0.14 per person-year). Of all exacerbations, 36%, 9%, and 15% required an unscheduled healthcare provider visit, emergency department visit without hospitalization, and hospitalization, respectively. Among patients not receiving biologics or SCS, higher blood eosinophil count, higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and lower total immunoglobulin E level were associated with higher exacerbation rates. Exacerbation rates decreased after starting or switching biologics (n = 1299). Multivariate analyses of enrolled patients showed prior-year exacerbations/hospitalizations, lack of asthma control, and geographic region also predicted event risk.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world cohort of specialist-treated US adults with SA, there was a substantial burden of exacerbations and associated healthcare resource utilization. Patients receiving biologics had a lower exacerbation burden.

Effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma: A retrospective study in China

BACKGROUND

We conducted the first real-world study of treatment with omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, in Chinese patients with severe allergic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was the steroid-sparing effect of omalizumab after 12 and 16 weeks of treatment. Characteristics of the patient population, treatment patterns, response rate, and other measures of therapeutic effectiveness were also reported.

METHODS

This nationwide, retrospective, real-world study was conducted in patients with severe allergic asthma who were treated with omalizumab in China. Data, including demographics, Asthma Control Test (ACT) and laboratory and lung function test results, and omalizumab use information, were extracted from patient records collected as part of a previously conducted real-world survey (Asthma Group of the Respiratory Disease Society of the Chinese Medical Association).

RESULTS

In total, 139 patient records were included; 131 and 118 patients remained on treatment at the ≥12- and ≥16-week time points, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation age and median asthma duration (interquartile range) were 47.4 ± 14.3 and 7 (4, 15) years, respectively; 75.6% of patients had a history of allergic disease. Reductions (versus baseline) in inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2 agonists or oral corticosteroids were reported in 61.1% and 63.6% of patients at ≥12 and ≥ 16 weeks, respectively. There were significant improvements in ACT scores (6.08, P < .001) and nitric oxide fraction in exhaled air (-13.0, P = .01) from baseline. Multivariate analysis revealed that age and allergic medical history were predictors of omalizumab treatment response. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Real-world omalizumab treatment was efficacious and well-tolerated in Chinese patients with severe allergic asthma.

Novel therapeutic approaches targeting endotypes of severe airway disease

Introduction: Severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), are heterogeneous diseases characterized by different mechanistic pathways (endotypes) and variable clinical presentations (phenotypes).Areas covered: This review provides the clinician with an overview of the prevalence and clinical impact of severe chronic upper and lower airways disease and suggests a novel therapeutic approach with biological agents with possible biomarkers. To select relevant literature for inclusion in this review, we conducted a literature search using the PubMed database, using terms 'severe airways disease' AND 'endotype' AND 'treatment.' The literature review was performed for publication years 2010-2020, restricting the articles to humans and English language publications.Expert opinion: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought forth many challenges for patients with severe airway disease and healthcare practitioners involved in care. These patients could have an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 disease, although treatment with biologics is not associated with a worse prognosis. Eosinopenia on hospital admission plays a key role as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker.

Evolution of our view on the IgE molecule role in bronchial asthma and the clinical effect of its modulation by omalizumab: Where do we stand today?

Bronchial asthma is a heterogeneous disease whose definition and treatment are based on evidence of variable airway obstruction and airway inflammation. Despite the enormous increase in the amount of information on the pathogenesis of this disease, diagnosis is still an unresolved problem, as we still lack sensitive and specific biomarkers. On the other hand, at the turn of the 20th and 21st century, there was a rapid development of therapeutic modalities based on the principle of biological therapy. The first authorized drug matching these characteristics was omalizumab – a monoclonal antibody directed against immunoglobulin E (IgE). It has been used for the treatment of severe forms of bronchial asthma for more than 15 years, which is a sufficient time to acquire ways of its effective use and to assess whether the treatment with omalizumab has met our expectations. However, we continue to discover new and surprising facts about the effects of omalizumab treatment which leads to widening of therapeutic indications. In this work, a basic overview of the very complex role of the IgE molecule in the organism (with a special emphasis on allergic asthma) is discussed, and the most important practical and clinical consequences resulting from its modulation by targeted therapy with omalizumab are summarized.

How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit

Five biologic medications are approved in the United States for the treatment of asthma that is not well controlled with other therapies. All target asthma with elevated type 2 inflammatory markers, such as elevated eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, or total and specific IgE. Asthma severity, phenotype, age, biomarkers, treatment goals/outcomes, comorbid conditions, safety, and cost should all help guide the initial biologic choice. In addition, a shared decision-making process with the patient is needed to optimize adherence, with special attention to patient preference regarding outcomes, safety concerns, and medication administration options. After a biologic agent is initiated, sufficient time is needed to monitor efficacy and response. For patients who do not respond favorably, patient-, disease-, and medication-related factors should be considered and remedied, if possible. Persistent suboptimal responders necessitate a reexamination of asthma phenotype, biomarkers, and the suspected immune response pathways. For some patients, a change in biologic therapy or other therapeutic options may be warranted. In this review, we examine the clinical approach for choosing an initial biologic for the treatment of asthma, the assessment of response to biologics, and the process of troubleshooting and adjusting biologic treatment for those patients with suboptimal responses.

Diagnosis and Management of T2-High Asthma

Type 2 (T2) inflammation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of asthma. IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, along with other inflammatory mediators, lead to increased cellular eosinophilic inflammation. It is likely that around half of all patients with asthma have evidence of T2-high inflammation. Sputum and blood eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide, blood IgE levels, and airway gene expression markers are frequently used biomarkers of T2-high asthma. Individuals with T2-high asthma tend to have several features of increased asthma severity, including reduced lung function and increased rates of asthma exacerbations, and T2-high patients demonstrate distinct pathologic features including increased airway remodeling and alterations in airway mucus production. Several monoclonal antibodies are now available to treat individuals with T2-high asthma and these medications significantly reduce asthma exacerbation rates.

Biomarkers for Severe Asthma: Lessons From Longitudinal Cohort Studies

Severe asthma (SA) is a heterogeneous disease characterized by uncontrolled symptoms, frequent exacerbations, and lung function decline. The discovery of phenotypes and endotypes of SA significantly improves our understanding of its pathophysiology and allows the advent of biologics blocking multiple molecular targets. The advances have mainly been made in type 2-high asthma associated with elevated type 2 inflammatory biomarkers such as immunoglobulin E (IgE), interleukins (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13. Previous clinical trials have demonstrated that type 2 biomarkers, including blood/sputum eosinophils and the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), were correlated to severe airway inflammation, persistent symptoms, frequent exacerbations, and the clinical efficacy of these biomarkers in predicting treatment outcomes of type 2-targeting biologics. However, it is well known that type 2 inflammation is partially attributable to the pathogenesis of SA. Although some recent studies have suggested that type 2-low and mixed phenotypes of asthma are important contributors to the heterogeneity of SA, many questions about these non-type 2 asthma phenotypes remain to be solved. Consequently, many efforts to investigate and find novel biomarkers for SA have also made in their methods. Many cross-sectional experimental studies in large-scale cohorts and randomized clinical trials have proved their value in understanding SA. More recently, real-world cohort studies have been in the limelight for SA research, which is unbiased and expected to give us an answer to the unmet needs of the heterogeneity of SA.

Omalizumab response in patients with asthma by number and type of allergen

BACKGROUND

The anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, improves asthma control and reduces exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, it has been suggested that omalizumab should be reserved for highly allergic patients with multiple allergen sensitivities or perennial-only sensitivities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine impact of allergy burden, including number and type of allergen sensitivities, on omalizumab response in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated a subset of omalizumab-treated patients from the Prospective Observational Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab (NCT01922037) who had completed 13 allergen assessments (N=478). Patients were classified by allergen burden (nonsensitized, 1, 2-4, or ≥5 allergen sensitivities) and type of allergen (nonsensitized, seasonal, perennial, or both). Outcome measures included exacerbation rate vs previous year and improvements in lung function and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ).

RESULTS

Comparable adjusted exacerbation rates were observed after omalizumab initiation, regardless of number or type of allergen sensitizations (0.56-0.85/y). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline at months 6 (0.03-0.09 L) and 12 (-0.08 to 0.08 L) were also similar across subgroups. Least squares mean change in AQLQ from baseline at months 6 (1.0-1.2) and 12 (1.1-1.4) was comparable across patient subgroups, and similar percentages of patients achieved AQLQ minimal clinically important difference of at least a 0.5-point improvement at month 6 (71%-75%), which was maintained or improved to month 12 (71%-89%). In all analyses, 95% confidence intervals overlapped.

CONCLUSION

Overall findings suggest that patients with allergic asthma achieved comparable improvements across distinct outcome measures after omalizumab therapy in a real-world setting, regardless of number and type of allergen sensitizations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01922037.