Mepolizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Repurposing of Chemotherapeutics to Combat COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain of SARS coronavirus. The COVID-19 disease caused by this virus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). SARS-CoV-2 mainly spreads through droplets sprayed by coughs or sneezes of the infected to a healthy person within the vicinity of 6 feet. It also spreads through asymptomatic carriers and has negative impact on the global economy, security and lives of people since 2019. Numerous lives have been lost to this viral infection; hence there is an emergency to build up a potent measure to combat SARS-CoV-2. In view of the non-availability of any drugs or vaccines at the time of its eruption, the existing antivirals, antibacterials, antimalarials, mucolytic agents and antipyretic paracetamol were used to treat the COVID-19 patients. Still there are no specific small molecule chemotherapeutics available to combat COVID-19 except for a few vaccines approved for emergency use only. Thus, the repurposing of chemotherapeutics with the potential to treat COVID-19 infected people is being used. The antiviral activity for COVID-19 and biochemical mechanisms of the repurposed drugs are being explored by the biological assay screening and structure-based in silico docking simulations. The present study describes the various US-FDA approved chemotherapeutics repositioned to combat COVID-19 along with their screening for biological activity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation.

A pathogenic integrated view explaining the different endotypes of asthma and allergic disorders

The inflammation of allergic diseases is characterized by a complex interaction between type 2 and type 3 immune responses, explaining clinical symptoms and histopathological patterns. Airborne stimuli activate the mucosal epithelium to release a number of molecules impacting the activity of resident immune and environmental cells. Signals from the mucosal barrier, regulatory cells, and the inflamed tissue are crucial conditions able to modify innate and adaptive effector cells providing the selective homing of eosinophils or neutrophils. The high plasticity of resident T- and innate lymphoid cells responding to external signals is the prerequisite to explain the multiplicity of endotypes of allergic diseases. This notion paved the way for the huge use of specific biologic drugs interfering with pathogenic mechanisms of inflammation. Based on the response of the epithelial barrier, the activity of resident regulatory cells, and functions of structural non-lymphoid environmental cells, this review proposes some immunopathogenic scenarios characterizing the principal endotypes which can be associated with a precise phenotype of asthma. Recent literature indicates that similar concepts can also be applied to the inflammation of other non-respiratory allergic disorders. The next challenges will consist in defining specific biomarker(s) of each endotype allowing for a quick diagnosis and the most effective personalized therapy.

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.

Daily Physical Activity in Asthma and the Effect of Mepolizumab Therapy

For the various asthma-specific beneficial effects of physical activity, daily physical activity (DPA) and the potential of asthma therapies on DPA require better characterization. Hence, we aimed to determine (a) the DPA of asthma patients, and (b) the effect of add-on mepolizumab on the DPA of severe asthma patients. Methods: Adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate or severe asthma had accelerometer assessment of DPA. Severe asthma patients who were commenced on mepolizumab had their DPA reassessed after 12 months. Results: For the total cohort (n = 36), daily step count, time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), MVPA volume and Movement Intensity (MI) were 7806 ± 3823 steps, 123 (interquartile range, 63) min, 657 ± 255 MET·min and 1.96 (0.45) m/s², respectively. All patients met at least one recommendation for DPA but less than half met recommendations for vigorous DPA. Patients on mepolizumab therapy increased daily step count (646 steps; 9%), time in MVPA (20 min; 21%), MVPA volume (87 MET·min; 17%) and MI (0.11 m/s²; 6%) for the same amount of moving time; lung function, asthma control and health-related quality of life also improved. Conclusions: Analysis of the first national data on DPA in asthma and novel comparison against current applicable guidelines and identified beneficial thresholds showed borderline levels of DPA with room for improvement especially for severe asthma patients. In a non-sedentary cohort of severe asthma patients, mepolizumab conferred significant and meaningful improvements in DPA.

Cost Utility of Bronchial Thermoplasty for Severe Asthma: Implications for Future Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on Phenotypic Heterogeneity

Background

Asthma is a disease with tremendous phenotypic heterogeneity, and the patients who are most severely impacted by the disease are high utilizers of the United States healthcare system. In the past decade, there has been many advances in asthma therapy for those with severe disease, including the use of a procedure called bronchial thermoplasty (BT) and the use of biologic therapy for certain phenotypes, but questions remain regarding the long-term durability and cost effectiveness of these therapies. The purpose of this analysis was (1) to assess the cost utility of BT relative to usual care (base case) and (2) to assess the cost utility of BT relative to usual care plus biologic therapy (omalizumab) (scenario analysis) based on updated 10-year clinical trial outcomes.

Methods

A Markov cohort model was developed and used to estimate the cost utility of BT to estimate the costs and quality-of-life impact of BT versus the comparisons over a 10-year time frame using a limited societal perspective, which included both direct health utilization costs and indirect costs associated with missed days of work, among those with severe persistent asthma.

Results

In the base case and the scenario analysis, BT was the dominant treatment strategy compared to usual care alone and usual care plus biologic therapy. The net monetary benefit for BT was $483,555.49 over a 10-year time horizon.

Conclusion

Cost-utility models are central to policy decisions dictating coverage, and can be extended to inform the patient and provider, during clinical decision-making, of the relative trade-offs of therapy, assessing long-term clinical and cost outcomes. Phenotypic classification of severe asthma is central to patient management and should also be integrated into economic analysis frameworks, particularly as new biologic agents are developed that are specific to a phenotype. Despite a larger upfront cost of BT therapy, there is a durable clinical and economic benefit over time for those with severe asthma.

COVID vaccination and asthma exacerbation: might there be a link?

INTRODUCTION

There is ongoing debate regarding the role of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in asthma exacerbation, and its long-term impact on the lung function of individuals with asthma. In contrast, the potential impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on asthma is entirely unexplored.

CASE STUDY

This study examined a challenging case of severe asthma exacerbation in a 28-year-old female following two doses of the mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo in Pavia, Italy. The patient, a fourth-year resident at the hospital, was vaccinated in early 2021. She was an occasional smoker with a 10-year history of asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis. She tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 on several molecular swabs and serology tests.

RESULTS

After receiving the second dose of vaccine, the patient started to experience worsening of respiratory symptoms. Following several episodes and a severe asthma attack, the patient required treatment with mepolizumab, a biologic drug (interleukin-5) antagonist monoclonal antibody.

CONCLUSION

This single case study is insufficient to draw conclusions about the association between asthma exacerbation and the COVID-19 vaccine. While the cause-effect link between vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and worsening of asthmatic disease might only be suggested at present, this case is a valuable prompt for further investigation. This is particularly true from the perspective of mass vaccination of adolescents and children currently underway across the globe.

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Availability of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments for severe asthma would be beneficial to patients and national healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditure after incorporating benralizumab into the standard treatment of refractory eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional multicentre study of consecutive patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma who received treatment with benralizumab during at least 12 months. Patient follow-up was performed in specialised severe asthma units. The main effectiveness parameters measured were: the avoidance of one asthma exacerbation, a 3-point increase in the asthma control test (ACT) score, and the difference in utility scores (health-related quality of life) between a 1-year baseline treatment and 1-year benralizumab treatment. The health economic evaluation included direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

After 1 year of treatment with benralizumab, patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma showed an improvement in all the effectiveness parameters analysed: improvement of asthma control and lung function, and decrease in the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (both as corticosteroid courses and maintenance therapy), and inhaled corticosteroid use. The total annual cost per patient for the baseline and benralizumab treatment periods were €11,544 and €14,043, respectively, reflecting an increase in costs due to the price of the biological agent but a decrease in costs for the remaining parameters. The ICER was €602 per avoided exacerbation and €983.86 for every 3-point increase in the ACT score.

CONCLUSIONS

All the pharmacoeconomic parameters analysed show that treatment with benralizumab is a cost-effective option as an add-on therapy in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma.

Economic impact of mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma, in real life

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients' health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients.

METHODS

Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients.

RESULTS

106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945-2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06-0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15-0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients' improvement.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on therapy to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma in Singapore

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab added to standard of care (SOC) compared with SOC alone among patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma in the Singapore setting.

METHODS

A Markov model with three health states (asthma on mepolizumab and SOC, asthma on SOC alone, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. During each 4-week cycle, patients in the non-death health states could experience asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid burst, emergency department visit, or hospitalization. Asthma-related mortality following an exacerbation or all-cause mortality could also occur at each cycle. The model was populated using local costs while utilities were derived from international literature. Transition probabilities were obtained from a mixture of Singapore-specific and internationally published data.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis comparing mepolizumab plus SOC with SOC alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD335 486 (USD238 195) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to the price of mepolizumab, followed by the proportion of exacerbations which required hospital intensive care. Despite restricting mepolizumab use to patients with a higher baseline exacerbation rate (3 in the past year) in a scenario analysis, the ICER remained high at SGD238 876 (USD 169 602) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

At its current price, mepolizumab is not considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore. Substantial price reductions for mepolizumab are required to improve its cost-effectiveness to an acceptable range. These results will be useful to inform national funding decisions.

Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe, uncontrolled oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma in Sweden

Aim: We investigated cost effectiveness of benralizumab vs. standard of care (SOC) plus oral corticosteroids (OCS) for patients with severe, eosinophilic OCS-dependent asthma in Sweden.Materials and methods: A three-state, cohort-based Markov model of data from three Phase III benralizumab clinical trials (ZONDA [NCT02075255], SIROCCO [NCT01928771], and CALIMA [NCT01914757]) was used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of benralizumab vs. SOC plus OCS. Health outcomes were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model included costs and disutilities associated with extrapolated OCS-related adverse events. Patients with severe asthma were defined as those receiving OCS ≥5 mg/day.Results: Benralizumab demonstrated a cost-effectiveness ratio vs. SOC plus OCS of 2018 Swedish Kronor (SEK) 366,855 (€34,127) per QALY gained, based on increases of 1.33 QALYs and SEK 488,742 (€45,344) per patient. Benralizumab treatment costs contributed most to incremental costs. The probability of benralizumab's being cost-effective with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds between SEK 429,972 (€40,000) and SEK 752,452 (€70,000) ranged from 75% to 99%.Limitations: Potential limitations of these analyses include the use of combined data from three different clinical trials, a one-way sensitivity analysis that did not include mortality and transition estimates, and Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) data from the UK as a proxy of the Swedish health care system.Conclusions: The results of these analyses demonstrate that benralizumab has a high probability of being cost-effective compared with SOC plus OCS for a subgroup of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma receiving regular OCS treatment and may support clinicians, payers and patients in making treatment decisions.

Real-word experience with mepolizumab: Does it deliver what it has promised?

BACKGROUND

Randomized control trials performed in selected populations of severe eosinophilic asthmatics have shown that mepolizumab, an anti-IL5 therapy, was able to reduce exacerbations and OCS maintenance dose and in some studies, to improve asthma control and lung function.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to confirm the results of the RCTs in real-life in a population of 116 severe eosinophilic asthmatics treated with mepolizumab and who were followed up at the asthma clinic every month for at least 18 months. Severe asthmatics underwent FENO, lung function, asthma control and quality of life questionnaires, sputum induction and gave a blood sample at baseline, after 6 months and then every year.

RESULTS

We found a significant reduction in exacerbations by 85% after 6 months (P < .0001), which was maintained over time. We also found a significant and maintained reduction by 50% in the dose of oral corticosteroids (P < .001). Patients improved their ACT (+5.31pts, p<0.0001) ACQ (-1.13pts, P < .0001) and their AQLQ score (+1.24, P < .0001) at 6 months and this was maintained during follow-up. Only 37% reached asthma control (ACQ <1.5, ACT> 20). We observed a progressive increase in post-BD FEV1 that reached significance after 18 months (190ml or 11%, P < .01). Patients improving their FEV1had higher baseline sputum eosinophils than those not improving airway caliber. We found a significant reduction in sputum eosinophil counts by 60% after 6 months (P < .01) and a maintained reduction in blood eosinophil counts by 98% (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In our real-life study, we confirm the results published in the RCTs showing a sharp reduction in exacerbation and oral corticosteroids dose and an improvement in asthma control and quality of life.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Mepolizumab is efficient in severe eosinophilic asthma in real life.

Physical Activity: A Missing Link in Asthma Care

Asthma is the commonest respiratory disease and one of unceasingly increasing prevalence and burden. As such, asthma has attracted a major share or scientific interest and clinical attention. With the various clinical and pathophysiological aspects of asthma having been extensively investigated, the important association between asthma and physical activity remains underappreciated and insufficiently explored. Asthma impacts adversely on physical activity. Likewise, poor physical activity may lead to worse asthma outcomes. This concise clinical review presents the current recommendations for physical activity, discusses the available evidence on physical activity in asthma, and examines the causes of low physical activity in adult asthmatic patients. It also reviews the effect of daily physical activity and exercise training on the pathology and clinical outcomes of asthma. Finally, it summarizes the evidence on interventions targeting physical activity in asthma.

2019 ARIA Care pathways for allergen immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a proven therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Many guidelines or national practice guidelines have been produced but the evidence-based method varies, many are complex and none propose care pathways. This paper reviews care pathways for AIT using strict criteria and provides simple recommendations that can be used by all stakeholders including healthcare professionals. The decision to prescribe AIT for the patient should be individualized and based on the relevance of the allergens, the persistence of symptoms despite appropriate medications according to guidelines as well as the availability of good-quality and efficacious extracts. Allergen extracts cannot be regarded as generics. Immunotherapy is selected by specialists for stratified patients. There are no currently available validated biomarkers that can predict AIT success. In adolescents and adults, AIT should be reserved for patients with moderate/severe rhinitis or for those with moderate asthma who, despite appropriate pharmacotherapy and adherence, continue to exhibit exacerbations that appear to be related to allergen exposure, except in some specific cases. Immunotherapy may be even more advantageous in patients with multimorbidity. In children, AIT may prevent asthma onset in patients with rhinitis. mHealth tools are promising for the stratification and follow-up of patients.

The spectrum of therapeutic activity of mepolizumab

Introduction: The basis of the development of the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab was the acknowledgment of the crucial importance of this cytokine in promoting eosinophils production, activation, and survival, which is associated with the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, as well as with other disorders characterized by high levels of eosinophils. Areas covered: All the available literature on the outcomes treatment with mepolizumab in eosinophilic disorders are reviewed, including asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis, esophagitis, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, eosinophilic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Expert opinion: The efficacy of mepolizumab in eosinophilic asthma is clearly demonstrated by a number of controlled trials and by meta-analyses. Among other eosinophilic disorders, controlled trials are available for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and eosinophilic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, as well as other minor eosinophilic disorders, are backed only by case reports and are waiting controlled trials to verify the therapeutic role of mepolizumab.

Health care resource utilization and cost for asthma patients regularly treated with oral corticosteroids - a Swedish observational cohort study (PACEHR)

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma may receive oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment regularly. The present study investigated the health care resource utilization and cost in regularly OCS treated Swedish asthma patients.

METHODS

Primary care medical records data were linked to data from Swedish national health registries. Patients ≥18 years with a drug claim for obstructive pulmonary diseases during 2007-2009 (index date) and a prior asthma diagnosis, were classified by their OCS claims during the 12-months' post index period: regular OCS equals ≥5 mg per day; periodic OCS less than 5 mg per day; or non-OCS users. Cost of asthma- and OCS-morbidity-related health care resource utilization were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 15,437 asthma patients (mean age 47.8, female 62.6%), whereof 223 (1.44%) were regular OCS users, 3054 (19.7%) were periodic, and 12,160 (78.7%) were non-OCS users. Regular OCS users were older and more often females, had lower lung function, greater eosinophil count and more co-morbidities at baseline compared with the other groups. Age-adjusted annual total health care cost was three-times greater in the regular OCS group (€5615) compared with the non-OCS users (€1980) and twice as high as in the periodic OCS group (€2948). The major cost driver in the non-OCS and periodic OCS groups were primary care consultations, whereas inpatient costs were the major cost driver in the regular OCS group. The asthma related costs represented 10-12% of the total cost in all three groups.

CONCLUSION

In this real-life asthma study in Sweden, the total yearly cost of health care resource utilization for a regular OCS user was three times greater than for a patient with no OCS use, indicating substantial economic and health care burden for asthma patients on regular oral steroid treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biological Asthma Treatments: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality.

RESULTS

Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.

CRTH2 antagonists in asthma: current perspectives

Chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on T_H2 cells (CRTH2) binds to prostaglandin D₂. CRTH2 is expressed on various cell types including eosinophils, mast cells, and basophils. CRTH2 and prostaglandin D₂ are involved in allergic inflammation and eosinophil activation. Orally administered CRTH2 antagonists are in clinical development for the treatment of asthma. The biology and clinical trial data indicate that CRTH2 antagonists should be targeted toward eosinophilic asthma. This article reviews the clinical evidence for CRTH2 involvement in asthma pathophysiology and clinical trials of CRTH2 antagonists in asthma. CRTH2 antagonists could provide a practical alternative to biological treatments for patients with severe asthma. Future perspectives for this class of drug are considered, including the selection of the subgroup of patients most likely to show a meaningful treatment response.