Real-world effectiveness of benralizumab: Results from the ZEPHYR 1 Study

Real-world effectiveness of dupilumab versus benralizumab and mepolizumab

Introduction: In the United States, this real-world study compared the effectiveness of dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations and systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions among patients with asthma. Methods: Patients (≥12 years old) who initiated dupilumab, benralizumab, or mepolizumab (index) between November 2018 and September 2020 were identified by using electronic medical record data. Subjects were included if they had ≥ 12 months of data before and after the index date and two or more severe asthma-related exacerbations before the index date. Differences in baseline characteristics were addressed by using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). Pairwise comparisons between dupilumab and benralizumab, or mepolizumab were conducted by using negative binomial regression, adjusting for baseline rates and unbalance characteristics (≥10% standardized differences) after IPTW. Results: Overall, a total of 1737 subjects met all criteria: 825 dupilumab, 461 benralizumab, and 451 mepolizumab initiators. In the postindex period, dupilumab was associated with a 24% and 28% significant reduction in the risk of severe asthma exacerbations versus benralizumab (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.67-0.86)] and mepolizumab (IRR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.82]), respectively. In addition, dupilumab treatment significantly reduced SCS prescriptions by 16% and 25% versus benralizumab and mepolizumab, respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study represents one of the largest real-world comparisons of biologics (dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for asthma in the United States to date. This analysis shows that the use of dupilumab was associated with a significantly greater reduction in both severe asthma exacerbations and SCS prescriptions compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab.

Exacerbations, treatment patterns, utilization, and costs before and after initiating of benralizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the number of exacerbations, counts of eosinophils, and asthma-related symptoms 1 year before and after initiating benralizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

Patients with prior exacerbations and newly initiating benralizumab were identified in the claims-based Healthcare Integrated Research Database. Claims were used to assess benralizumab treatment patterns, exacerbations, healthcare resource utilization, and other asthma medication used. Among a subset of patients, medical records were abstracted for Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores and asthma symptoms.

RESULTS

There were 506 patients meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for claims-based analyses and 123 for medical-record analyses. The number of patients experiencing exacerbations significantly decreased from baseline to follow-up (40% reduction, McNemar's χ2 = 204.00, p < .001). The mean number of exacerbations also decreased from 3.2 (1.5) to 1.2 (1.4) (paired t = 24.45, p < .001; Cohen's D = 1.09). The effects were larger among patients with eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL. Among patients with an ACT available for baseline and follow-up (n = 47), there was a significant reduction in the number of patients with scores <19 (72% vs. 45%, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with benralizumab resulted in fewer exacerbations, reduced utilization, and improved ACT scores. This study demonstrates that benralizumab is an effective treatment option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

Comparative Impact of Asthma Biologics: A Nationwide US Claim-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic modifiers targeting type 2 (T2) airway inflammation are effective in reducing asthma exacerbation. However, real-world and comparative effectiveness studies remain limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare the real-world impact of anti-T2 asthma biologics.

METHODS

In this retrospective, new user cohort study, we used the MarketScan, a Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, to identify adult patients with asthma who began to receive an anti-T2 biologic agent (anti-IL-5s, dupilumab, or omalizumab). We examined the influence of the biologic class on asthma exacerbation by comparing the average number of asthma exacerbation 1 year before and after biologic initiation. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to compare the effectiveness of these asthma biologics on reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations within 18 months of the initial administration of biologics while controlling for demographic variables, comorbidities, and asthma severity.

RESULTS

We identified 5,538 asthma patients who were new to taking an anti-T2 biologic [mean age [±SD], 45.6 (12.78) years; 65.8% female). Asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation by 11% to 47%, particularly among patients with two or more asthma exacerbations in the year preceding biologic initiation (31% to 65% reduction). Biologics were especially effective in reducing asthma-related hospitalizations (44.6% to 60%). After adjusting for baseline demographics, asthma medication, and comorbidities, dupilumab was associated with a lower estimated mean number of asthma exacerbation per year and lower adjusted odds ratio for developing an asthma exacerbation relative to other biologics (50% to 80% less likely).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-T2 asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation in real-word settings. Evidence supports growing literature reporting that dupilumab might have a more favorable impact on asthma exacerbation relative to other asthma biologics.

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.

Real-world clinical remission of severe asthma with benralizumab in Spanish adults with severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experience high risk of exacerbations and reduced quality of life. Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody binding to IL-5 receptor α subunit, is an approved drug for its treatment. The objective was to describe clinical remission after benralizumab prescription in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter study with data from four hospitals in Valencian Community (Spain) with asthma units between 2019 and 2020. Data was gathered at baseline and after 12 months. We considered clinical remission after 1 year if the patient remained without exacerbations and use of systemic corticosteroids and with good clinical control and normal lung function.

RESULTS

Data from 139 patients was gathered. At the 12-month follow-up, 44.1% were in clinical remission, since 84.0%, 77.5%, 51.0% and 95.5% of patients did not experience exacerbations, had total asthma control test score of ≥20, prebronchodilator FEV1 of ≥80% and did not use systemic corticosteroids. A significant reduction of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (p = 0.0001), leukotriene receptor antagonists (p = 0.0326), oral corticosteroids (p < 0.0001) and short-acting beta agonists (p = 0.0499) was observed. Baseline factors with greatest individual influence on clinical remission were employment situation, tobacco use, comorbidity number, eosinophil value, number of exacerbations, FEV1, emergency visit number, and ACT, MiniAQLQ and TAI scores. Final analysis of multiple logistic regression indicated that having baseline FEV1 value below 80% increases remission chance 9.7 times a year compared to FEV1 >80%.

CONCLUSION

Clinical remission after treatment with benralizumab is achievable in a high percentage of patients with severe asthma eosinophilia not controlled in real life.

Mucus Structure, Viscoelastic Properties, and Composition in Chronic Respiratory Diseases

The respiratory mucus, a viscoelastic gel, effectuates a primary line of the airway defense when operated by the mucociliary clearance. In chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cystic fibrosis (CF), the mucus is overproduced and its solid content augments, changing its structure and viscoelastic properties and determining a derangement of essential defense mechanisms against opportunistic microbial (virus and bacteria) pathogens. This ensues in damaging of the airways, leading to a vicious cycle of obstruction and infection responsible for the harsh clinical evolution of these CRDs. Here, we review the essential features of normal and pathological mucus (i.e., sputum in CF, COPD, and asthma), i.e., mucin content, structure (mesh size), micro/macro-rheology, pH, and osmotic pressure, ending with the awareness that sputum biomarkers (mucins, inflammatory proteins and peptides, and metabolites) might serve to indicate acute exacerbation and response to therapies. There are some indications that old and novel treatments may change the structure, viscoelastic properties, and biomarker content of sputum; however, a wealth of work is still needed to embrace these measures as correlates of disease severity in association with (or even as substitutes of) pulmonary functional tests.

A cost comparison of benralizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in patients with severe asthma: A US third-party payer perspective

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of biologics have demonstrated reduced exacerbations, decreased use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and improvements in daily symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). OBJECTIVE: To compare direct health care costs associated with biologic use for the treatment of SEA from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: We developed a cost-minimization model to compare costs and cost offsets associated with 3 biologics-benralizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-for 2- and 4-year periods. The model relied on longitudinal data from clinical trials to inform the primary (base case) analysis cost comparison and RWE study data, in a separate scenario, to compare costs in nonclinical trial settings. Primary model outcomes included exacerbations (including hospitalizations), OCS-dependent years (including associated complications), and total direct health care biologic costs. Results were calculated at the per patient and population level (per 1,000 patients). Sensitivity analyses with key model parameters were performed. RESULTS: Benralizumab had the lowest total biologic costs per patient for both the 2- and 4-year periods. Over 4 years, the marginal cost difference in total biologic costs per patient was $23,061 lower for benralizumab vs mepolizumab and $17,242 lower for benralizumab vs dupilumab. The 4-year population level analysis of benralizumab vs mepolizumab revealed $4.8 million in marginal cost offsets due to 582 fewer exacerbations and 153 fewer OCS-dependent years and a marginal total cost savings of $27.9 million per 1,000 patients for benralizumab. The 4-year population level analysis of benralizumab vs dupilumab revealed $2.3 million in marginal cost offsets due to 291 fewer exacerbations and 64 fewer OCS-dependent years and marginal total cost savings of $19.5 million per 1,000 patients for benralizumab. RWE data were available for a 2-year cost comparison scenario of benralizumab vs mepolizumab, which showed similar results to the base case analysis. Sensitivity analyses varying assumptions on key model parameter estimates confirmed results, with benralizumab having lower total direct health care costs in all scenarios tested, and showed that model results were most sensitive to changes in biologic costs and exacerbation reduction rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving benralizumab had higher nonbiologic cost offsets because of reductions in exacerbations and OCS-dependent years, leading to greater cost savings for third-party payers compared with patients receiving mepolizumab or dupilumab. Taken together with biologic costs, benralizumab presents greater savings in health care costs for payers than patients with SEA who use mepolizumab or dupilumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK). Drs Xu, Chung, Genofre, and Katial are or were AstraZeneca employees at the time this research was conducted and may be shareholders of AstraZeneca. Ms Schaefer and Dr Szende are employees of Labcorp Drug Development, which received funding from AstraZeneca to perform this research.

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

The development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting specific components of the pathways relevant to asthma pathophysiology has revolutionized treatment of severe asthma both in adults and children and helped to further unravel the heterogeneity of this disease. However, the availability of multiple agents, often with overlapping eligibility criteria, creates a need for pragmatic guidance for specialists undertaking care of patients with severe asthma. In this review, we provide an overview of the data supporting the clinical efficacy of biologics in distinct asthma phenotypes/endotypes. We also focus on the role of biomarkers and treatable traits, including comorbidities, in the choice of asthma biologics, highlight which treatments have been demonstrated to be steroid sparing in corticosteroid dependent asthma, and provide practical guidance that can drive shared decision making on treatment choice with patients. In addition, we summarize what is known to date regarding long-term safety of these drugs, and lastly, discuss future directions in biologics research.

An early Indian experience with benralizumab - A compendium on severe asthma cases: a case series

Background: Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), one of the phenotypes of asthma that is characterized by elevated blood eosinophil counts, is a common cause of uncontrolled asthma. Patients with SEA often experience severe persistent symptoms and have frequent exacerbations despite optimal inhaler therapy. They also have poor lung function and quality of life (QoL). Benralizumab (Fasenra), a monoclonal antibody, has been approved for managing cases of SEA. This series of six cases, the first of its kind from India, aims to add to the real-world evidence of benralizumab in India. Methods: Benralizumab 30 mg (once in four weeks for the first three doses followed by a dose every eight weeks for two years) was administered in six patients with symptoms of cough, breathlessness on exertion, and wheezing, diagnosed with SEA. The following were the endpoints assessed: (i) overlap between high immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophilic asthma; (ii) reduction of exacerbations; (iii) withdrawal of oral corticosteroids; and (iv) improvement in lung function and QoL. Results: In all cases, management with benralizumab resulted in optimal clinical and functional improvement, a decline in systemic steroid use, and improved QoL. Conclusions: The cases presented here are the first of their kind in the Indian asthmatic population with all SEA patients demonstrating significant improvement in symptoms with the use of benralizumab.

Personalized and Precision Medicine in Asthma and Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Role of T2 Target Therapy

The role of type 2 inflammation has been progressively associated with many diseases, including severe asthma, atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and, recently, eosinophilic esophagitis. Despite this, the association between asthma and esophagitis is still poorly known, and this is probably because of the low prevalence of each disease and the even lower association between them. Nonetheless, observations in clinical trials and, subsequently, in real life, have allowed researchers to observe how drugs acting on type 2 inflammation, initially developed and marketed for severe asthma, could be effective also in treating eosinophilic esophagitis. For this reason, clinical trials specifically designed for the use of drugs targeted to type 2 inflammation were also developed for eosinophilic esophagitis. The results of clinical trials are presently promising and envisage the use of biologicals that are also likely to be employed in the field of gastroenterology in the near future. This review focuses on the use of biologicals for type 2 inflammation in cases of combined severe asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis.

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.

Economic evaluation of biological treatments in patients with severe asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a highly prevalent disease, one of the chronic diseases with the highest economic costs; thus, it imposes a high economic burden on society, the healthcare system, patients, and third-party payers. Contrary to this study, until now, systematic reviews of economic evaluations (EEs) of treatments for severe asthma have not been exclusively focused on biological treatments, and have included a small number of studies and only model-based EEs.

METHODS

This study systematically reviews EEs of biological therapies for severe asthma published until December 2022 using PRISMA guidelines. The review analyzes the cost-effectiveness of biologicals in comparison to SOC, or SOC plus OCS. The quality of the EEs is assessed using Consensus on Health Economics Checklist extended (CHEC-extended).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were eligible: 15 based on a Markov model, and 19 trial-based; eight adopting societal and NHS perspectives, and seven the payer's perspective. The reviewed EEs addressed cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and incremental costs and outcomes comparison. Their findings were mainly expressed through ICER-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (24 studies: 13 concluded that biological were cost-effective) and cost comparison analysis (14 studies: 6 concluded that biological were cost-effective), and were sensitive to a wide variety of factors (e.g. medication cost, treatment response, time horizon, utility benefits, mortality, exacerbation rate, discount rate, etc.).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been some ambiguity concerning the EE of biological therapies due to variation in choice of study design and contradictory results. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that biological treatments improve health outcomes, in many contexts at a high cost.

Real-world effectiveness of benralizumab in US subspecialist-treated adults with severe asthma: Findings from CHRONICLE

BACKGROUND

Patients with eosinophilic severe asthma (SA) have an increased risk of asthma exacerbations. Benralizumab is approved for eosinophilic SA, and there is great value in understanding real-world effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness of benralizumab in a real-world cohort of subspecialist-treated US patients with eosinophilic SA.

METHODS

CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For this analysis, eligible patients enrolled from February 2018 to February 2021, had received ≥1 dose of benralizumab, and had study data for ≥3 months before and after benralizumab initiation. The primary analysis included patients with prior exacerbations reported and 12 months of outcomes data before and after initiation. Patient outcomes occurring 6-12 months before and after initiation were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 317 patients had ≥3 months of follow-up before and after first benralizumab dose. For patients with 12 months (n = 107) and 6-12 months (n = 166) of data, significant reductions were observed in annualized rates of exacerbations (62%; P < 0.001 and 65%; P < 0.001, respectively), with similar reductions in the rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Benralizumab recipients with blood eosinophil counts (BEC) of ≥300/μL and <300/μL at baseline and 12 months of data also had significant reductions in exacerbations (68%; P < 0.001, 61%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This real-world, noninterventional analysis reinforces the clinical value of benralizumab in the management of patients with eosinophilic SA.

The Comorbid Patient in the Spotlight: Efficacy of Benralizumab on Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyp Outcomes in Presence of Severe Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review aims to systematically assess published data to elucidate benralizumab efficacy on nasal outcomes in comorbid patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease of the nasal cavity often associated with severe asthma (SA), contributing to a global disease burden in asthmatics. The two pathologies share common underlying mechanisms (e.g., type-2 inflammation), which sustain symptoms and poor comorbid patient quality of life. Therefore, it is of primary importance to identify the correct therapeutic option in order to achieve the optimal management of patients affected by both pathologies. Benralizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed at the α subunit of the interleukin-5 receptor (IL-5Rα) approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. Increasing body of literature provides data on its efficacy also on CRSwNP in the comorbid SA patient. Based on the data described in this review, when benralizumab is administered to comorbid patients, it does not only control severe asthma but also improves CRSwNP clinical outcomes, although we need further studies to add stronger evidence and to improve the correct pheno-endotyping of the comorbid patient.

Impact of benralizumab on asthma exacerbation-related medical healthcare resource utilization and medical costs: results from the ZEPHYR 2 study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Benralizumab is a biologic add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations, but data on the associated medical utilization are scarce. This retrospective study evaluated the economic value of benralizumab by analyzing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in a large patient population in the US.

METHODS

Insurance claims data (11/2016-6/2020) were analyzed. A pre-post design was used to compare asthma exacerbation rates, medical HRU and medical costs in the 12 months pre vs. post index (day after benralizumab initiation). Patients were aged ≥12 years, with ≥2 records of benralizumab and ≥2 asthma exacerbations pre index, and constituted non-mutually exclusive cohorts: biologic-naïve, biologic-experienced (switched from omalizumab or mepolizumab to benralizumab), or with extended follow-up (18 or 24 months).

RESULTS

In all cohorts (mean age 51-53 years; 67-70% female; biologic-naïve, N = 1,292; biologic-experienced, N = 349; 18-month follow-up, N = 419; 24-month follow-up, N = 156), benralizumab treatment reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation by 53-68% (p < .001). In the biologic-naïve cohort, inpatient admissions decreased by 58%, emergency department visits by 54%, and outpatient visits by 58% post index (all p < .001), with similar reductions in exacerbation-related medical HRU in other cohorts. Exacerbation-related mean total medical costs decreased by 51% in the biologic-naïve cohort ($4691 pre-index, $2289 post-index), with cost differences ranging from 16% to 64% across other cohorts (prior omalizumab: $2686 to $1600; prior mepolizumab: $5990 to $5008; 18-month: $3636 to $1667; 24-month: $4014 to $1449; all p < .001). Medical HRU and cost reductions were durable, decreasing by 64% in year 1 and 66% in year 2 in the 24 month follow-up cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with benralizumab with prior exacerbations experienced reductions in asthma exacerbations and exacerbation-related medical HRU and medical costs regardless of prior biologic use, with the benefits observed for up to 24 months after treatment initiation.

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.

Impact of initiation of amikacin liposome inhalation suspension on hospitalizations and other healthcare resource utilization measures: a retrospective cohort study in real-world settings

BACKGROUND

Mycobacterium avium complex lung disease (MAC-LD) is an infection that is increasing in frequency, associated with substantial disease burden, and often refractory to treatment. Amikacin liposome inhalation suspension (ALIS) is the first therapy approved for refractory MAC-LD. In the CONVERT study of adult patients with refractory MAC-LD, adding ALIS to a multidrug background regimen showed evidence of MAC infection elimination in sputum by month 6, which was maintained in most patients through the end of treatment (≤ 12 months post-conversion). This study assessed changes in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among patients initiating ALIS in real-world settings.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of the All-Payer Claims Database (October 2018-April 2020) included patients aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for ALIS and ≥ 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment pre- and post-ALIS initiation. Respiratory disease-related (and all-cause) HCRU (hospitalizations, length of stay [LOS], emergency department [ED] visits, and outpatient office visits) were compared 12 months pre- and post-ALIS initiation. Outcomes were reported at 6-month intervals; 0-6 months pre-ALIS initiation was the reference period for statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 331 patients received ALIS, with HCRU highest in the 6 months pre-ALIS initiation. Compared with 26.9% during the reference period, respiratory-related hospitalizations decreased to 19.3% (P < 0.01) and 15.4% (P < 0.0001) during 0-6 and 7-12 months post-ALIS initiation, respectively. Mean number of respiratory disease-related hospitalizations per patient/6-month period decreased from 1.0 (reference period) to 0.6 (P < 0.0005) at both timepoints post-ALIS initiation. A similar pattern was observed for all-cause hospitalizations and hospitalizations per patient/6-month period (both P < 0.005). Reductions in all-cause and respiratory disease-related LOS post-ALIS initiation were significant (both P < 0.05). ED visits were few and unchanged during the study. Significant reductions per patient/6-month period in all-cause and respiratory-related outpatient office visits were observed post-ALIS initiation (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first real-world study of ALIS, respiratory disease-related (and all-cause) hospitalizations and outpatient visits were reduced in the 12 months following ALIS initiation. The results of this study provide HCRU-related information to better understand the impact of initiating ALIS treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not appliable.