REal worlD Effectiveness and Safety of Mepolizumab in a Multicentric Spanish Cohort of Asthma Patients Stratified by Eosinophils: The REDES Study

Anti-IL-5 Pathway Agents in Eosinophilic-Associated Disorders Across the Lifespan

Monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-5 pathways have revolutionized the treatment expectations for eosinophilic-associated conditions, particularly in patients with respiratory involvement. Mepolizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody), benralizumab (IL-5 receptor blocker monoclonal antibody), and reslizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody) have collectively contributed to the overall improvement of the disease burden in various conditions. Eosinophilic asthma currently boasts the most robust evidence across all age groups: all three biologics are approved for adults (aged ≥18 years); mepolizumab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also in children (aged ≥ 6 years), while bernalizumab was recently approved by the FDA for patients aged ≥6 years in the USA. In chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, subcutaneous mepolizumab is the only anti-IL-5 therapy approved so far and can be used in adult patients (aged ≥18 years). For eosinophilic esophagitis, conflicting evidence surrounds both mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab, leading to non-approval of these agents by the FDA/EMA. Recently, mepolizumab was approved for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis patients aged ≥6 years or older and for hypereosinophilic syndrome adult patients. A phase III trial proving noninferiority of benralizumab versus mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis has been recently published, while evidence on reslizumab is scant. Overall, current evidence on anti-IL-5 biologics for eosinophilic-associated disorders is mostly focused on adults, whereas data for individuals aged under 18 years and over 65 years are scarce, resulting in a lack of evidence, particularly regarding efficacy, for the use of anti-IL-5 agents in these specific patient populations. This review addresses high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world post-marketing studies regarding the use of anti-IL-5 therapies for eosinophilic-associated disorders across all age groups, spanning childhood, adulthood, and older age.

Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control.

SUMMARY

Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered.

Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Six biologic agents are now approved for patients with severe asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of licensed biologic agents in patients with severe asthma, including the recently approved tezepelumab.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify randomised controlled trials involving licensed biologics until 31 January 2023. We used random-effects meta-analysis models for efficacy, including subgroup analyses by individual agents and markers of T2-high inflammation (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide), and assessed safety.

RESULTS

48 studies with 16 350 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Biologics were associated with a 44% reduction in the annualised rate of asthma exacerbations (rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.62) and 60% reduction of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60), a mean increase in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 0.11 L (95% CI 0.09-0.14), a reduction in asthma control questionnaire by 0.34 points (95% CI -0.46--0.23) and an increase in asthma quality of life questionnaire by 0.38 points (95% CI 0.26-0.49). There was heterogeneity between different classes of biologics in certain outcomes, with overall greater efficacy in patients with T2 inflammation. Overall, biologics exhibited a favourable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that licensed asthma biologics reduce exacerbations and hospitalisations, improve lung function, asthma control and quality of life, and limit the use of systemic corticosteroids, with a favourable safety profile. These effects are more prominent in patients with evidence of T2 inflammation.

Barriers to clinical remission in severe asthma

Severe asthma is associated with an increased risk for exacerbations, reduced lung function, fixed airflow obstruction, and substantial morbidity and mortality. The concept of remission in severe asthma as a new treatment goal has recently gained attention due to the growing use of monoclonal antibody therapies, which target specific pathologic pathways of inflammation. This review evaluates the current definitions of asthma remission and unveils some of the barriers for achieving this state in the severe asthma population. Although there is no unified definition, the concept of clinical remission in asthma should be based on a sustained period of symptom control, elimination of oral corticosteroid exposure and exacerbations, and stabilization of pulmonary function. The conjugation of these criteria seems a realistic treatment target in a minority of asthmatic patients. Some unmet needs in severe asthma may affect the achievement of clinical remission. Late intervention with targeted therapies in the severe asthma population may increase the risk of corticosteroid exposure and the development of irreversible structural airway changes. Moreover, airway infection is an important component in persistent exacerbations in patients on biologic therapies. Phenotyping exacerbations may be useful to guide therapy decisions and to avoid the liberal use of oral corticosteroids. Another challenge associated with the aim of clinical remission in severe asthma is the multifaceted interaction between the disease and its associated comorbidities. Behavioural factors should be evaluated in case of persistent symptoms despite optimised treatment, and assessing biomarkers and targeting treatable traits may allow for a more objective way of reaching remission. The concept of clinical remission will benefit from an international consensus to establish unifying criteria for its assessment, and it should be addressed in the future management guidelines.

Real-world outcomes of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in Canada: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab, the first widely available anti-interleukin 5 biologic, targets eosinophilic inflammation and has been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations, oral corticosteroid dependence, and healthcare utilization in patients with severe asthma. The impact of mepolizumab in a real-world, publicly funded healthcare setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the demographics and clinical characteristics of real-world patients receiving mepolizumab, and to compare asthma-related outcomes and associated asthma-related costs before and during mepolizumab use.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study in Ontario, Canada, included patients initiating mepolizumab between February 2016 and March 2019. Patients were identified using the mepolizumab patient support program and linked to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences database of publicly accessed healthcare. Patient outcomes were obtained for 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab initiation and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients were enrolled in the overall patient support program cohort (mean [standard deviation] age 57.6 [13.5] years, mean [standard deviation] of the median per-patient eosinophil count 540.4 [491.9] cells/μL). Mepolizumab was associated with reductions in asthma exacerbations (46.1%, P < 0.001) and in the number of asthma-related visits to general practitioners (40.2%, P < 0.001), specialists (27.2%, P < 0.001), and emergency departments (52.1%, P < 0.001). Associated costs were significantly lower post- versus pre-mepolizumab for asthma-related general practitioner and specialist visits, and for all-cause emergency department visits and hospital admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world population of Canadian patients with severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype, the use of mepolizumab within a patient support program reduced asthma exacerbations and decreased asthma-related healthcare resource utilization and associated costs.

Comparison of Long-term Response and Remission to Omalizumab and Anti-IL-5/IL-5R Using Different Criteria in a Real-life Cohort of Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of biologic therapy response is vital to monitor its effectiveness. Authors have proposed various response criteria including good responder, super-responder, non-responder, and clinical remission.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the prevalence of response and clinical remission after long-term treatment (>6 months) of anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics, compare these results with existing criteria, and identify predictors for non-responders and clinical remission.

METHODS

A multicenter, real-life study involving severe asthma patients in Spain. Various outcomes were assessed to gauge response and clinical remission against established criteria.

RESULTS

The study included 429 patients, 209 (48.7%) omalizumab, 112 (26.1%) mepolizumab, 19 (4.4%) reslizumab and 89 (20.7%) benralizumab, with a mean treatment duration of 55.3±38.8 months. In the final year of treatment, 218 (50.8%) were super-responders, 173 (40.3%) responders, 38 (8.9%) non-responders, and clinical remission in 116 (27%), without differences among biologics. The short-term non-responders (<6 months) were 25/545 (4.6%). Substantial variations in response and clinical remission were observed when applying different published criteria. Predictors of non-response included higher BMI (OR:1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23; p<0.001), admissions at ICU (2.69; 1.30-5.56; p=0.01), high count of SAE (1.21; 1.03-1.42; p=0.02) before biologic treatment. High FEV1% (0.96; 0.95-0.98; p<0.001), a high ACT score (0.93; 0.88-0.99; p=0.01) before biologic treatment or NSAID-ERD (0.52; 0.29-0.91; p=0.02) showed strong associations with achieving clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of severe asthma patients treated long-term with omalizumab or anti-IL5/IL-5Rα achieved a good response. Differences in response criteria highlight the need for harmonization in defining response and clinical remission in biologic therapy to enable meaningful cross-study comparisons.

A real-world pharmacovigilance study of mepolizumab in the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database

Mepolizumab is primarily used in the treatment of asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, eosinophilia syndrome, and chronic rhinitis with nasal polyps. The information about its adverse drug reactions is mainly derived from clinical trials, and there is a shortage of real-world studies with extensive sample sizes. In this study, the U.S. FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was analyzed to evaluate the side effects of mepolizumab. A total of 18,040 reports of mepolizumab-associated adverse events were identified from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database. Multiple disproportionality analysis algorithms were used to determine the significance of these AEs. The study identified 198 instances of mepolizumab-induced AEs, including some important AEs not mentioned in the product labeling. The time to onset of adverse reactions was also analyzed, with a median time of 109 days. Most AEs occurred within the first month of mepolizumab use, but some may still occur after 1 year of treatment. Gender-specific analysis showed different high-risk AEs for females (digestive and neurological side effects) and males (serious adverse effects leading to hospitalization and death). The findings mentioned provide valuable insights on optimizing the use of mepolizumab, enhancing its effectiveness, and minimizing potential side effects. This information will greatly contribute to the practical implementation of the drug in clinical settings.

Mepolizumab in Patients With Severe Asthma and Comorbidities: 1-Year REALITI-A Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma is complex; comorbidities may influence disease outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess mepolizumab effectiveness in patients with severe asthma and comorbidities.

METHODS

REALITI-A was a 2-year international, prospective study enrolling adults with asthma newly prescribed mepolizumab (100 mg subcutaneously) at physician's discretion. This post hoc analysis assessed 1-year outcomes stratified by comorbidities at enrollment: chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), depression/anxiety, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Outcomes included the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs; requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or hospital/emergency room admission) between the 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment and changes from baseline in daily maintenance oral corticosteroid dose (mo 12), Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score (mo 12) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; mo 9-12).

RESULTS

At enrollment (n = 822), 321 of 822 (39%), 309 of 801 (39%), 203 of 785 (26%), and 81 of 808 (10%) patients had comorbid CRSwNP, GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD, respectively. Post- versus pre-treatment across all comorbidity subgroups: the rate of CSEs decreased by 63% or more; among 298 (39%) patients on maintenance oral corticosteroids at baseline, median dose decreased by 50% or more; Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score decreased by 0.63 or more points; FEV1 increased by 74 mL or more. Patients with versus without CRSwNP had the greatest improvements (eg, rate of CSEs decreased by 75%). Patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, or COPD had greater improvements than those with the respective comorbidities, except for FEV1 in patients with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab improved disease outcomes in patients with severe asthma irrespective of comorbidities, with additional benefit for patients with CRSwNP.

Characterizing Adverse Events of Biologic Treatment of T2 Disease: A Disproportionality Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

INTRODUCTION

Over the last 3 years, the FDA has approved dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab for the treatment of CRSwNP; however, adverse events of these biologics have not been described in post-marketing surveillance trials. By utilizing the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), this study describes and compares biologic-associated adverse events in T2 disease.

METHODS

This case-non-case study assessed disproportionate reporting rates using reporting odds ratios (RORs). RORs and p values for biologic-associated AEs were categorized and compared among dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab. This analysis included AEs associated with all treatment indications. Relative AE rates and outcomes were calculated.

RESULTS

There were a total of 112,560, 24,428, and 18,741 unique AE reports associated with dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab, respectively. Omalizumab had the strongest association with anaphylaxis (ROR = 20.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.58, 23.29). Dupilumab had large relative proportions and positive signals in the ophthalmologic category (7.76%, ROR = 6.20, 95% CI: 6.06, 6.35), such as with blurry vision (ROR = 3.80, CI: 3.52, 4.12) and visual impairment (ROR = 1.98, CI: 1.80, 2.19). Dupilumab was the only biologic associated with injection-site reactions (7.98%, ROR = 8.17, 95% CI: 7.98, 8.37).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale comparative analysis of the AE profiles of dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab. Our data suggest possible relations between dupilumab and ophthalmologic and injection-site AEs. Omalizumab was the only biologic with a positive anaphylaxis signal. This FAERS investigation suggests important AE differences among these biologics.

Real-world outcomes of mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma patients - retrospective cohort study in Slovakia

AIMS

Mepolizumab, a fully-humanized recombinant IgG1 kappa monoclonal antibody directed against IL-5, has shown improved asthma control and lung function in randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-world clinical experience in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab in Slovakia.

METHODS

A retrospective, non-interventional study based on medical records of all adult asthma patients initiating mepolizumab between November 1, 2017 and January 31, 2019, completing 12 months of treatment. At baseline, general and clinical profile data were recorded 12 months prior to treatment. Primary and secondary endpoints described the results of mepolizumab use at 2, 6, and 12 months after the initiation and compared to baseline. Statistical testing of individual change (in each patient) in selected parameters was performed.

RESULTS

The cohort included 17 patients with particularly severe asthma at baseline, with frequent severe exacerbations (SE, median 5 [IQR 4-6]/patient/year), high blood eosinophil counts (median 0.6x109/L), frequent oral corticosteroid (OCS) dependence (82.35%), median dose 15 (IQR 7.5-20) mg/day, impaired lung function, and a spectrum of comorbidities. In a one-year follow-up, the data showed reductions in median SE (0 [IQR 0-1] patient/year, eosinophilia (median 0.175x109/L) and OCS maintenance dose (median 6.25 [IQR 2.5-20] mg/day), all statistically significant after 12 months on mepolizumab. Improved and stabilised lung functions throughout the cohort and a reduced incidence of nasal polyposis were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide clinical evidence of mepolizumab efficacy in a real sample of patients with severe asthma when administered in routine care settings in Slovakia.

Real-World Effectiveness Study of Benralizumab for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: ZEPHYR 2

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact.

METHODS

Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/μL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index.

RESULTS

There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/μL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.

Potential impact of mepolizumab in stepping down anti-osteporotic treatment in corticosteroid-dependent asthma

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are commonly used for the acute management of severe asthma exacerbations or as maintenance therapy; however, chronic use is associated with significant toxicities, e.g., osteoporosis. In the REal worlD Effectiveness and Safety (REDES) study of mepolizumab in a multicentric Spanish cohort of asthma patients, mepolizumab effectively reduced clinically severe asthma exacerbations and decreased OCS dependence. This post-hoc analysis further evaluates mepolizumab's de-escalation effect on OCS dose. Patients enrolled in REDES who had OCS consumption data available for 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment were included in this analysis. Primary outcomes were to determine the change in the proportion of patients eligible for anti-osteoporotic treatment due to the changes in OCS consumption before and after 1 year of mepolizumab treatment. All analyses are descriptive. Approximately one-third (98/318; 30.8%) of patients in REDES were on maintenance OCS at the time of mepolizumab treatment initiation. In REDES, mean cumulative OCS exposure decreased by 54.3% after 1 year of treatment. The proportion of patients on high-dose OCS (≥7.5 mg/day) fell from 57.1% at baseline to 28.9% after 12 months of mepolizumab treatment. Thus, 53.6% of OCS-dependent asthma patients treated with mepolizumab would cease to be candidates for anti-osteoporotic treatment according to guidelines thresholds.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of a single ascending subcutaneous dose of GSK3772847 in healthy participants

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of GSK3772847, compared with placebo administered subcutaneously (SC) in healthy participants, including cohorts of Japanese and Chinese participants. This was a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, single ascending dose study. Following a screening period of up to 28 days, eligible participants were assigned to one of four cohorts receiving a single dose of GSK3772847 70 mg (cohort 1) or 140 mg (cohorts 2, 3, and 4) or placebo SC. In cohorts 1 and 2, participants were randomly assigned to one of three injection sites (upper arm, abdomen, or thigh), while cohorts 3 and 4 included Japanese and Chinese participants, respectively, assigned to receive GSK3772847 or placebo SC (upper arm). Participants attended follow-up visits on Days 9, 15, 29, 43, 57, 71, and 85 before final analysis. GSK3772847 was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild, resolved without treatment and were considered not related to study treatment by the investigator. There were no serious AEs or deaths during the study. The PK and PD were dose dependent, with negligible differences across injection sites or ethnicities. Target engagement was demonstrated by reduced free soluble interleukin 33 (sIL-33) concentrations and substantially increased total sIL-33 concentrations compared with baseline. Subcutaneously administered GSK3772847 was well tolerated in healthy participants, including cohorts of Japanese and Chinese participants, and shows consistent PK and PD across injection sites and ethnicities.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes

(1) Background: Over the past 20 years, monoclonal antibodies have been developed for the treatment of severe asthma, with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to define their safety and efficacy. The growing availability of biologics, which until now have only been available for T2-high asthma, has been further enriched by the arrival of tezepelumab. (2) Methods: This review aims to evaluate the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in RCTs of biologics for severe asthma to understand how they could potentially predict outcomes and how they can help differentiate between available options. (3) Results: The studies reviewed demonstrated that all biologic agents are effective in improving asthma control, especially with regard to reducing exacerbation rates and OCS use. As we have seen, in this regard, there are few data on omalizumab and none yet on tezepelumab. In analysing exacerbations and average doses of OCSs, pivotal studies on benralizumab have enrolled more seriously ill patients. Secondary outcomes, such as improvement in lung function and quality of life, showed better results-especially for dupilumab and tezepelumab. (4) Conclusion: Biologics are all effective, albeit with important differences. What fundamentally guides the choice is the patient's clinical history, the endotype represented by biomarkers (especially blood eosinophils), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis).

Mapping knowledge structure and research of the biologic treatment of asthma: A bibliometric study

Background

Bronchial asthma (asthma) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways, involving a variety of cells and cellular components, that manifests clinically as recurrent episodes of wheezing, shortness of breath, with or without chest tightness or cough, airway hyperresponsiveness, and variable airflow limitation. The number of people with asthma has reached 358 million worldwide and asthma causes huge economic loss. However, there is a subset of patients who are not sensitive to existing drugs and the existing drugs have many adverse effects. Therefore, it's important to find new drugs for asthma patients.

Methods

Publications related to biologics in asthma published from 2000 to 2022 were retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection. The search strategies were as follows: topic: TS=(biologic* OR "biologic* product*" OR "biologic* therap*" OR biotherapy* OR "biologic* agent*" OR Benralizumab OR "MEDI-563" OR Fasenra OR "BIW-8405" OR Dupilumab OR SAR231893 OR "SAR-231893" OR Dupixent OR REGN668 OR "REGN-668" OR Mepolizumab OR Bosatria OR "SB-240563" OR SB240563 OR Nucala OR Omalizumab OR Xolair OR Reslizumab OR "SCH-55700" OR SCH55700 OR "CEP-38072" OR CEP38072 OR Cinqair OR "DCP-835" OR DCP835 OR Tezspire OR "tezepelumab-ekko" OR "AMG-157" OR tezspire OR "MEDI-9929" OR "MEDI-19929" OR MEDI9929 OR Itepekimab OR "REGN-3500"OR REGN3500 OR "SAR-440340"OR SAR440340 OR Tralokinumab OR "CAT-354" OR Anrukinzumab OR "IMA-638" OR Lebrikizumab OR "RO-5490255"OR "RG-3637"OR "TNX-650"OR "MILR1444A"OR "MILR-1444A"OR"PRO301444"OR "PRO-301444"OR Pitrakinra OR altrakincept OR "AMG-317"OR"AMG317" OR Etokimab OR Pascolizumab OR "IMA-026"OR Enokizumab OR "MEDI-528"OR "7F3COM-2H2" OR 7F3COM2H2 OR Brodalumab OR "KHK-4827" OR "KHK4827"OR "AMG-827"OR Siliq OR Ligelizumab OR "QGE-031" OR QGE031 OR Quilizumab OR Talizumab OR "TNX-901" OR TNX901 OR Infliximab OR Etanercept OR "PRS-060") AND TS=asthma*. The document type was set to articles and review articles and the language restriction was set to English. Three different analysis tools including one online platform, VOS viewer1.6.18, and CiteSpace V 6.1.R1 software were used to conduct this bibliometric study.

Results

This bibliometric study included 1,267 English papers published in 244 journals from 2,012 institutions in 69 countries/regions. Omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, and tezepelumab in relation to asthma were the research hotspots in the field.

Conclusion

This study systematically uncovers a holistic picture of existing literature related to the biologic treatment of asthma over the past 20 years. We consulted scholars in order to understand key information in this field from the perspective of bibliometrics, which we believe may greatly facilitate future research in this field.

Severe Asthma Remissions Induced by Biologics Targeting IL5/IL5r: Results from a Multicenter Real-Life Study

Add-on biological therapy has proven to be effective in many patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In this observational multicenter retrospective study, we report the results obtained with mepolizumab and benralizumab in severe asthmatics treated for 12 months in a real-life setting. In these patients, peripheral eosinophil levels, pulmonary function trends, exacerbation rates, systemic corticosteroid use, and symptom control were evaluated during the observation period, to understand which patients met all the criteria in order to be considered in disease remission. The percentage of remittent patients was 30.12% in the mepolizumab-treated subgroup, while in the benralizumab-treated subgroup, patients in complete disease remission were 40%, after 12 months. The results of this study confirm the efficacy of anti-IL-5 biologic drugs in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in a real-life setting.

Impact of Anti-IL5 Therapies on Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA) counts for more than 25% of cases of severe asthma. The main factors that impair the quality of life of these patients are high doses of oral corticosteroids, the presence of exacerbations, and reduced lung function. The objective of this study was to evaluate, in real life, the clinical improvement of patients with SUA treated with anti-interleukin 5 (IL5) therapies: mepolizumab and benralizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma in a tertiary hospital receiving biological therapies. Three types of response were evaluated: improvement in lung function, reduction in exacerbations, and decrease in the use of oral corticosteroids. After 12 months of treatment, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, the use of oral corticosteroids, and blood eosinophil levels for both biological therapies (p < 0.001). Lung function improved, achieving a significant improvement in %FEV1 (p < 0.001), as well as asthma control, with a significant increase in asthma control test (ACT) scores in both therapies. The markers associated with the corticosteroid-saving effect were the low doses of oral corticosteroids and absence of exacerbations for mepolizumab, and higher blood eosinophilia, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and reduction in oral corticosteroid cycles for benralizumab. The greatest improvement in lung function in both therapies was linked to lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of other respiratory diseases. The reduction in exacerbations was associated with absence of exacerbations the previous year for mepolizumab and never smokers for benralizumab. The results of this real-life study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of an anti-IL5 biological therapy and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to treatment.

Remission outcomes in severe eosinophilic asthma with mepolizumab therapy: Analysis of the REDES study

Introduction

Clinical remission as a multicomponent treatment goal in severe asthma is being explored in clinical practice. This post hoc analysis used data from the REDES study to assess the proportion of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma achieving our multicomponent definitions of clinical remission after 1 year of mepolizumab treatment.

Methods

The real-world, retrospective observational REDES study enrolled patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab and with ≥12 months of medical records pre-enrolment. Multicomponent clinical remission was defined as: oral corticosteroid (OCS)-free; exacerbation-free; asthma control test (ACT) score ≥20; and with or without post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≥80%. Baseline characteristics were also assessed in those who did/did not achieve clinical remission.

Results

37% and 30% of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma met our proposed three- and four-component on-treatment clinical remission definitions; an increase from 2% and 3% at baseline. Most frequently achieved individual components of clinical remission were: OCS-free; ACT score ≥20. For patients fulfilling the multicomponent clinical remission definitions, at baseline we observed higher blood eosinophil counts, better ACT scores and lung function, lower maintenance OCS use, and a slightly lower rate of prior exacerbations versus those who did not.

Discussion

Clinical remission is a realistic target in clinical practice for a subset of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving mepolizumab. Further studies are required to elucidate whether features linked to the underlying endotype can help predict treatment outcomes, increase rates of clinical remission, and potentially modify disease progression.

Pharmacological profile of mepolizumab

An elevated number of eosinophils have been implicated in several type 2 inflammatory chronic diseases that occur at various sites in the body. Over the past 20 years, our knowledge of diseases associated with increased numbers of eosinophils has advanced thanks to the development of drugs that can reduce or even eliminate eosinophils. One such agent is mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin -5 (IL-5). This article briefly and clearly summarizes the pharmacological profile of mepolizumab and its current indications for a number of chronic eosinophilic diseases.

Biologics for severe asthma: The real-world evidence, effectiveness of switching, and prediction factors for the efficacy

Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized controlled trials have established clinical evidence, but a significant portion of patients with severe asthma in real-life settings would have been excluded from those trials. Therefore, real-world research is necessary, and there is a growing body of information about the long-term efficacy and safety of biologics. Multiple clinical phenotypes of severe asthma exist, and it is crucial to choose patients based on their phenotypes. Blood eosinophil count is an important biomarker for anti-IL-5 therapies, and FeNO and eosinophil counts serve as prediction markers for dupilumab. Reliable markers for predicting response, however, have not yet been fully established for omalizumab. Identification of clinical or biological prediction factors is crucial for the path toward clinical remission because the current treatment goal includes clinical remission, which is defined as a realistic goal for remission off treatment. Additionally, since there are now multiple biologic options and overlaps in eligibility for biologics in clinical practice, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of switching the biologics is crucial. Investigations into the clinical trajectory following the cessation of biologics are another important issue. Recent research on omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab's real-world effectiveness, the prediction factor for the efficacy, and the impact of switching or discontinuation will be reviewed and discussed in this review.

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: case report and literature review

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), previously known as Churg-Strauss syndrome, is a multisystem disorder characterised by asthma, blood and tissue eosinophilia and small-vessel vasculitis. Eosinophilic tissue infiltration and extravascular granuloma formation can lead to damage in any organ, but it is classically seen to cause pulmonary infiltrates, sino-nasal disease, peripheral neuropathy, renal and cardiac involvement, and rashes. EGPA is part of the anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis syndromes, with the antibody being detected in ∼30-40% of cases and mostly against myeloperoxidase. Two genetically and clinically distinct phenotypes, defined by the presence or absence of ANCA have been identified. Treatment for EGPA focuses on inducing and maintaining disease remission. To date, oral corticosteroids remain first-line agents whilst second-line treatments include immunosuppressants such as cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, methotrexate, rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil. However, long-term steroid usage results in multiple and well-known adverse health effects and new insights into the pathophysiology of EGPA have allowed for the development of targeted biologic therapies, like the anti-eosinophilic, anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibodies.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF BENRALIZUMAB VERSUS MEPOLIZUMAB AND DUPILUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE UNCONTROLLED EOSINOPHILIC ASTHMA IN SPAIN

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of benralizumab (benra) vs. mepolizumab (mepo) and dupilumab (dupi) for the treatment of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma from the Spanish Health System perspective.

METHODS

Exacerbations avoided, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs in a 5-year period were estimated with a Markov model for a cohort of 1,000 patients in which, based on published evidence, 31% of the patients received biologics + oral corticosteroids (OCS) and 69% received only biologics. Efficacy data (exacerbation reduction and OCS elimination) were derived from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Published EQ-5D utilities per health state (biologic alone, biologic + OCS, standard of care + OCS, exacerbations, and post-exacerbations) were used for QALY estimation. Utility decrements associated with exacerbation management [-0.1 (OCS or emergency visits), -0.2 (hospitalization)] derived from the literature were applied. Costs (€, 2022) included drug acquisition (ex-factory price), administration and disease management. An expert panel (2 pneumologists and 1 pharmacist) validated all inputs.

RESULTS

Benra was more effective (52.21 QALYs) than mepo (51.39 QALYs) and dupi (51.30 QALYs). Benra avoided more exacerbations (2.87 exacerbations) compared to mepo (4.70 exacerbations) and dupi (5.11 exacerbations) for the 5-year horizon. Total costs/patient were €56,093.77 (benra), €59,280.45 (mepo) and €62,991.76 (dupi), resulting in benra dominating (more QALYs with lower costs) vs. mepo and dupi.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab can be considered as a dominant treatment alternative vs. other biologic drugs for the treatment of uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma patients in Spain.

Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma

In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.

Real-Life Performance of Mepolizumab in T2-High Severe Refractory Asthma with the Overlapping Eosinophilic-Allergic Phenotype

Severe asthma (SA) is categorized into multiple overlapping phenotypes and clinical characteristics driven by complex mechanistic inflammatory pathways. Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody effectively targeting interleukin-5 in severe eosinophilic asthma. However, the eligibility of biologics in coincident SA phenotypes is still unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in real-life patients with the overlapping T2-high SA endotype. This was a phase IV, single-centre observational cohort study including patients with severe refractory T2-high asthma in treatment with mepolizumab. After 12 months of treatment with mepolizumab, significant improvements (p < 0.0001) in asthma control and lung function were recorded. Rates of clinically significant annual asthma exacerbation were also decreased by 71.22% after 52-week therapy with mepolizumab (p < 0.001) associated with a reduction in the mean daily dose of oral corticosteroids. Two patients (3.27%) had to discontinue mepolizumab due to musculoskeletal disorders with no severe safety issues reported. The use of mepolizumab as an add-on therapy in routine clinical practice was safely associated with significant clinical and functional in the overlapping eosinophilic-and-allergic SA phenotype. The current data should support clinical and therapeutic decision-making in this T2-high SA endotype.

REALITI-A Study: Real-World Oral Corticosteroid-Sparing Effect of Mepolizumab in Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe asthma may require maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control as well as systemic corticosteroid (SCS) bursts for clinically significant exacerbations. However, mOCS and SCS use are associated with adverse effects, which increases patient disease burden.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real-world corticosteroid-sparing effect of mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

REALITI-A was a 24-month international, prospective, observational cohort study involving 84 centers across Europe, Canada, and the United States, with a 1-year pre-post mepolizumab treatment preplanned interim analysis. A total of 822 adults with a clinical diagnosis of asthma and a physician decision to initiate mepolizumab treatment (100 mg subcutaneously) were included. End points included daily mOCS dose at baseline (penultimate 28 days of pretreatment) and 1 year after treatment; percent reduction from baseline in mOCS dose; patients discontinuing mOCS 1 year after treatment; and the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (those requiring OCS for 3 days or more [or parenteral administration], emergency room visit, and/or hospital admission) before and after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 319 patients received mOCS at baseline (median [interquartile range]: 10.0 [5.0-15.0] mg/d). At 1 year after treatment, median mOCS dose was reduced by 75% (2.5 [0.0-5.0] mg/d); 64% of patients had a reduction in mOCS dose of 50% or greater compared with baseline and 43% discontinued mOCS. Clinically significant exacerbations decreased between pretreatment and posttreatment (rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.29 [0.26-0.32]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This 1-year analysis demonstrates that real-world mepolizumab treatment is clinically effective in patients with severe asthma, providing disease control while reducing the need for mOCS and SCS bursts.

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.

Oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) have long been a mainstay of treatment for asthma exacerbations and chronic severe asthma. However, it is increasingly recognized that both long-term and short-term OCS use are directly associated with a wide range of serious adverse effects, and as such OCS-sparing treatment alternatives are now widely recommended for patients with severe asthma. While several international guidelines recommend these treatments, guidance on OCS tapering, and which patients are most likely to tolerate OCS reduction and/or discontinuation, is still lacking. Several biologics have demonstrated efficacy in patients with OCS-dependent asthma. One OCS-sparing treatment is the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. In addition to improved exacerbation rates, asthma control, quality of life, and lung function among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, mepolizumab also has an OCS-sparing effect, which has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies. Both physicians and patients express concerns about the adverse effects of OCS, and additional data from the randomized, controlled SIRIUS trial (NCT01691508) highlight the high level of concern among patients regarding OCS-related burden. In this article, we discuss current guidance on OCS-sparing strategies for patients with severe asthma, provide a summary of the available evidence of the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab, and highlight patient and physician perspectives on the use of OCS and OCS-sparing treatments in severe asthma.