Omalizumab for the treatment of exacerbations in children with inadequately controlled allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma

Critical pathomechanisms of NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) clarified by treatment with omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody

Characteristic symptoms of NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) include asthma, chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, cysteinyl LT (CysLT) overproduction and NSAIDs hypersensitivity. Some N-ERD patients present with episodic treatment-resistant extra-respiratory symptoms (CysLT-associated coronary artery vasospasm, gastroenteritis, or skin rash). Even when using standard treatments for respiratory and extra-respiratory symptoms, including systemic corticosteroids and aspirin desensitization, it is difficult to control the clinical symptoms and severe type 2 inflammation involved with mast cells, eosinophils, ILC2s, and platelet activation. Few treatment options are applicable in a clinical setting. Therefore, identifying effective treatments is essential for managing N-ERD patients who suffer from these conditions. Our previous observational study demonstrated 12-month omalizumab treatment of N-ERD was clinically effective against respiratory symptoms. Despite the remaining eosinophilia, omalizumab significantly reduced urinary LTE4 and PGD2 metabolites to near normal levels at steady state. Based on the preliminary study, we demonstrated that omalizumab induced tolerance to aspirin in N-ERD patients 3 months after therapy initiation and suppressed activation of mast cells during 24 h of initiation in a randomized manner. Moreover, omalizumab had significant efficacy against extra-respiratory symptoms at baseline (lacking aspirin exposure) as well as throughout aspirin challenge. This review addresses the latest discoveries related to N-ERD pathogenesis and the significant effectiveness of omalizumab on N-ERD as a mast cell stabilizer. Our findings regarding omalizumab-associated mast cell inhibitory effects are indirect evidence that mast cell dysregulation and, possibly, IgE are pivotal components of N-ERD.

Use of Omalizumab for Pediatric Asthma After US Food and Drug Administration Expanded Indications

PURPOSE

Research and regulatory approval for pediatric uses of prescription drugs often lag years after adult approvals, during which time substantial off-label use of medications in children can occur. We evaluated whether US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory actions affected the pediatric use of omalizumab, a biologic drug used to treat asthma.

METHODS

In this serial cross-sectional study, we identified quarterly cohorts of children (0-18 years) with moderate-to-severe asthma within two large national claims databases of those with commercial insurance and Medicaid from 2003 to 2019. Using an interrupted time-series analysis, we fit segmented linear regression models to identify changes in the incidence of omalizumab use in 6-11-year-old children compared with 12-18-year-olds after two time points: (1) 2009Q3 when an FDA advisory committee voted against use for 6-11-year-old children and (2) 2016Q2 when FDA expanded omalizumab's labeling to include 6-11-year-old children.

RESULTS

We identified 9298 new pediatric omalizumab users (84% Medicaid). Among 6-11-year-old children, the incidence of omalizumab use did not change following the FDA's initial review of evidence in 2009 and increased after 2016 Q2 FDA approval for this age group in both Medicaid (58 per 100 000 children with asthma, 95% confidence interval [CI] 27-89, p < 0.001) and commercial insurance (57 per 100 000, 95% CI 21-94, p = 0.003) compared with 12-18-year-old children.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of omalizumab among asthmatic children aged 6-11 years remained steady after FDA advisory committee concerns in 2009 and increased after FDA expanded the indication to include this population in 2016. Additional market incentives may help to ensure the timely generation of evidence and regulatory approval of medications for children.

The new biologic drugs: Which children with asthma should get what?

Novel biologics (targeted antibody therapies) have revolutionized the management of severe childhood asthma. However, it is important that the right biologic is selected for the right patient, and understanding the evidence base for each biologic is crucial. Currently, four biologics (all monoclonal antibodies) are licensed in the UK for the treatment of children with severe asthma - omalizumab (Xolair), mepolizumab (Nucala), and dupilumab (Dupixent) in children aged 6 years and over; and tezepelumab (Tezspire), only in children aged 12 years and over. Tezepelumab is the only licensed biological that may be beneficial in severe asthma without evidence of Type 2 inflammation. All have a good safety profile but varying degrees of clinical efficacy in children, with wide variation in treatment responsiveness between individual patients. When selecting biologics for severe asthma, it is essential to remember the limitations of the current pediatric evidence. At present, there are no results from randomized, head-to-head trials of biologics in severe asthma. TREAT is an ongoing trial comparing omalizumab to mepolizumab and will be one of the first to provide such evidence. We must be especially aware of the dangers of extrapolating data from adults to children, because the pathophysiology and role of biomarkers may differ significantly from adult asthma. Given the current level of knowledge, even after treatment has been initiated, children should be regularly reviewed to determine the efficacy of treatment, side-effect profile and consideration of when treatment with the biologic should be discontinued.

Type 2 Inflammation and Asthma in Children: A Narrative Review

Increased understanding of the underlying pathophysiology has highlighted the heterogeneity of asthma and identified that most children with asthma have type 2 inflammation with elevated biomarkers, such as blood eosinophils and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Although in the past most of these children may have been categorized as having allergic asthma, identifying the type 2 inflammatory phenotype provides a mechanism to explain both allergic and non-allergic triggers in pediatric patients with asthma. Most children achieve control with low to medium doses of inhaled corticosteroids. However, in a small but significant proportion of children, asthma remains uncontrolled despite maximum conventional treatment, with an increased risk of severe exacerbations. In this review, we focus on the role of type 2 inflammation and allergic processes in children with asthma, together with evidence of the efficacy of available treatment options for those who experience severe symptoms.

Biological treatments in childhood asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim is to update the information currently available for the use of biologics in severe asthma in children, in order to facilitate their prescription as far as possible.

RECENT FINDINGS

The appearance of biologics for the treatment of severe asthma has meant a revolutionary change in the therapeutic approach to this disease. Currently, five biologics have been approved for severe asthma in children and/or adolescents by the regulatory agencies: omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and tezepelumab. But despite their positive results in terms of efficacy, there are still relevant points of debate that should induce caution when selecting the most appropriate biologic in a child with severe asthma. Indeed, safety is essential and, for several of the existing treatments, the availability of medium-term to long-term data in this regard is scarce.

SUMMARY

The use of biologics can facilitate the therapeutic paradigm shift from pleiotropic treatments to personalized medicine. However, the choice of the most appropriate biologics remains a pending issue. On the other hand, to the extent that several of the biologics have been available for a relatively short time, the most robust evidence in terms of efficacy and safety in children is that of omalizumab.

Meta-analysis of the adoption of omalizumab in the treatment of pediatric allergic diseases

Introduction

Allergic diseases are common chronic conditions in children, omalizumab has a wide range of adoptions in various diseases. A meta-analysis was implemented to demonstrate the efficacy of omalizumab in the therapy of pediatric allergic diseases.

Materials and methods

English databases were searched. The search terms included "Omalizumab", "Children", "Allergic asthma", and "Atopic dermatitis". The literature was screened regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data were extracted and analyzed using RevMan5.3.

Results

a total of six suitable studies, comprising 2761 patients, were selected for inclusion. The meta-analysis results implied that at 24 weeks, OR for worsening of symptoms in children was 0.10 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.41), Z = 3.24, P = 0.001 (P < 0.05); at 52 weeks, OR was 0.27 (95 % CI 0.09-0.83), Z = 2.28, P = 0.02 (P < 0.05); and during treatment, OR for adverse events in children was 0.87 (95 % CI 0.60-1.29), Z = 0.68, P = 0.49 (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

the study comprised six investigations that examined the effectiveness of omalizumab in treating pediatric allergic diseases. The findings demonstrated that, in comparison to standard treatment, omalizumab can greatly alleviate allergy-related clinical symptoms in children, slow down disease progression, and has a higher safety profile with fewer adverse reactions. These results have practical implications and highlight the potential value of omalizumab in pediatric allergy treatment.

A Randomized, Single-Dose, Parallel-Controlled Phase 1 Clinical Comparison of an Omalizumab Biosimilar Candidate with Reference Omalizumab in Healthy Chinese Male Volunteers

This study evaluated the bioequivalence of omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against immunoglobulin-E (IgE), with one of its biosimilar candidates. The study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial. A total of subjects who met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the exclusion criteria were dynamically randomly assigned to receive the test drug or the reference drug with a single subcutaneous injection of 150 mg by the minimization method. The test group and the reference group had similar demographic characteristics and baseline characteristics of total IgE. The 90% confidence interval of the geometric average ratio of the area under the serum concentration-time curve from the time 0 to the time of last quantifiable concentration, the area under the serum concentration curve from time 0 to infinity, and the maximum observed serum concentration between the 2 groups were within 80%-125%, showing bioequivalence. The changing trend of total and free IgE in the 2 groups was similar after administration, proving the pharmacodynamic similarity. The 2 groups had no significant difference in the positive rate of antidrug antibodies, and the total positive rate of neutralizing antibodies was 0. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar between the 2 groups, with no serious adverse events. This study shows that the test drug had similar pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and safety to the reference omalizumab in healthy male subjects.

The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge in Childhood Asthma over Time: A Surprising History

Asthma is a disease that has been described since the times of Hammurabi. However, it is only since the 1960s that effective therapeutic strategies have been available. Pathogenic mechanisms underlying the disease have been deeply studied, contributing to creating a "patient-specific asthma" definition. Biological drugs have been approved over the last twenty years, improving disease management in patients with severe asthma via a "precision medicine-driven approach". This article aims to describe the evolution of scientific knowledge in childhood asthma, focusing on the most recent biological therapies and their indications for patients with severe asthma.

Healthcare costs and resources utilization in children with difficult-to-control asthma treated with biologic therapies: A population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is one of the most common diseases in children, with a variable range of severity. In recent years, treatment for severe asthma has been largely improved by the availability of targeted biologic therapies. Nevertheless, studies reporting real-world data and cost-effectiveness analyses are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate, on a population-based cohort of children with asthma, the impact of the treatment with biologics on healthcare service utilization and associated costs.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from Healthcare Utilization database of Lombardy region (Italy). A cohort of 46 asthmatic children aged 6-11 in treatment with dupilumab, mepolizumab or omalizumab was identified during 2017-2021. We compared healthcare resources use between the year before ("baseline period") and the year after the treatment initiation ("follow-up period"). Average 1-year healthcare costs were also calculated.

RESULTS

Comparing the baseline with the follow-up period, the number of patients with at least one exacerbation-related hospitalization and ER access decreased by 75.0% and 85.7%, respectively. The use of biologic agents, namely omalizumab, mepolizumab and dupilumab, significantly reduced oral corticosteroids (OCS), short-acting β2-agonists and the association inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists use. ER admissions for non-respiratory causes were also significantly reduced, while discontinuation rate was low (6.5%). The overall costs increased, due to the costs of the biologic agents, but the hospital admission-related costs due to respiratory causes reduced significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-world investigation suggests that biologic agents reduced hospital admissions for respiratory causes and use of anti-asthmatic drugs, including OCS. However, long-term healthcare sustainability still needs more in-depth assessments.

Early Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Biologics in Pediatric Allergic Diseases: Preliminary Results from a Prospective Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing interest in biologics for the management of allergic diseases, sparse real-world data are still available in the pediatric population. This study aimed to evaluate the early real-life efficacy and safety of omalizumab for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and Dupilumab for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODS

A prospective study enrolling children aged 6-18 years was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs at 16 weeks of treatment (T1). The effectiveness was measured using validated questionnaires (ACQ-5 for asthma, UAS7 for CSU, and EASI score for AD). Secondary outcome measures included reductions in inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosages, asthma-related hospitalizations/exacerbations, and quality of life (QoL) indicators (iNRS, sNRS, DLQI/cDLQI) for CSU and AD. Safety was expressed according to the descriptions of adverse events provided by EMA and FDA.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of eighteen children (mean age 12.9 ± 3.4 years). The omalizumab treatment significantly reduced ACQ-5 and UAS7 scores (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). In patients with asthma, decreased ICS dosage and hospitalization/exacerbation rates were observed. QoL parameters significantly improved in CSU and AD patients. No severe adverse events were reported for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings validate omalizumab and dupilumab as effective and safe therapeutic options for managing moderate-to-severe allergic diseases in children and adolescents.

IgG in the control of FcεRI activation: a battle on multiple fronts

The rising global incidence of IgE-mediated allergic reactions poses a significant challenge to the quality of life of affected individuals and to healthcare systems, with current treatments being limited in effectiveness, safety, and disease-modifying capabilities. IgE acts by sensitizing the high-affinity IgE receptor FcεRI expressed by mast cells and basophils, tuning these cells for inflammatory degranulation in response to future allergen encounters. In recent years, IgG has emerged as an essential negative regulator of IgE-dependent allergic inflammation. Mechanistically, studies have proposed different pathways by which IgG can interfere with the activation of IgE-mediated inflammation. Here, we briefly summarize the major proposed mechanisms of action by which IgG controls the IgE-FcεRI inflammatory axis and how those mechanisms are currently applied as therapeutic interventions for IgE-mediated inflammation.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Factors influencing poor response to type 2 targeted therapies in severe asthma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A significant breakthrough has been made in treating severe asthma, with the recognition of various asthma phenotypes and an updated management guideline. Type 2 targeted therapies, such as benralizumab and omalizumab; have been identified as an effective treatment for severe asthma, improving patient response, lung function tests and asthma symptom control. This study aimed to evaluate factors contributing to poor response to therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort study of 162 patients with severe asthma who started biologic therapy; their data were retrieved from medical records for further analysis. Poor responders were patients remained clinically and functionally uncontrolled despite even after augmenting all treatment options.

RESULTS

Childhood-onset asthma, bronchiectasis, poor symptom control (ACT below 19), severe airway obstruction (< 60% predicted), and maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use were significantly associated with poor response to omalizumab and benralizumab; p = 0.0.4 and 0.01; 0.003 and 0.01; 0.01 and 0.001, 0.05 and 0.04; 0.006 and 0.02, respectively. However, chronic rhinosinusitis and IgE < 220kIU/L were associated with higher poor response rates to omalizumab (p = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). At the same time, female patients and those with blood eosinophils level < 500 cells/mm3 had a higher poor response rate to benralizumab (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). Ischemic heart disease (IHD), bronchiectasis, and continued use of OCS increased the likelihood of poor response to omalizumab by 21, 7, and 24 times (p = 0.004, 0.008, and 0.004, respectively). In contrast, the female gender, childhood-onset asthma and higher BMI increased the likelihood of poor response to benralizumab by 7, 7 and 2 times more, p = 0.03, 0.02 and 0.05, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Poor response to omalizumab treatment was independently associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD), bronchiectasis, and a history of maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use. Conversely, poor response to benralizumab therapy was independently linked to female gender, childhood-onset asthma and higher body mass index (BMI).

[Biologics in severe childhood asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma in children remains relatively rare. It is no longer considered as a single disease but rather as a syndrome corresponding to different phenotypes and distinct pathophysiological pathways. Various biomarkers can contribute to phenotyping, essentially specific IgE test results, blood eosinophil counts, the exhaled fraction of NO (FeNO) assay, as well as deep lung biomarkers from induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage or bronchial biopsy.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

In children, the biologics currently approved for severe asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab and dupilumab from the age of 6, and tezepelumab from the age of 12.

PERSPECTIVES

Benralizumab and tezepelumab offer promising perspectives and a pediatric extension could be of interest in future treatment of severe pediatric asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on physiopathological mechanisms, biologics represent a new and promising approach in the treatment of asthma. That said, the long-term efficacy and impact of these treatments on the natural history of the disease require further investigation. It is of paramount importance to take into account the specificities of pediatric asthma and, more particularly, to conduct clinical trials in younger patients.

Controversies in Allergy: Are Biologic Treatment Responses in Severe Asthma the Same in Adults and Children?

The availability of biologic agents for patients with severe asthma has increased dramatically over the last several decades. The absence of direct head-to-head comparative data and relative lack of biomarkers to predict response can make it difficult to choose the right biologic medication for a given patient. Selecting a biologic agent for the pediatric population presents further challenges due to more limited approved biologic agents and fewer clinical trials in children. In addition, the outcome data that are currently available suggest that treatment responses for a given biologic may be different between adult and pediatric patients. To better understand this possible difference in treatment response, this review focuses on the available efficacy data for biologics evaluated in adult and pediatric patients with severe asthma in addition to other considerations when choosing a biologic agent. Finally, this review discusses how asthma phenotypes differ across age groups and their contributions to the responses to biologic treatment across age groups.

Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Asthma is the most frequent chronic disease of childhood, affecting up to 20% of children worldwide. The main guidelines on asthma maintenance therapy in pediatrics suggest different approaches and describe different stages of asthma to determine the most appropriate treatment. This project aims to summarize the most recent evidence regarding maintenance therapy for asthma in children and adolescents. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was asked clinical questions regarding the treatment of children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, 10 clinical questions were addressed, and the search strategy included accessing electronic databases and a manual search of gray literature published in the last 25 years. After data extraction and narrative synthesis of results, recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Results showed that the choice of medication depends on the severity of the child's asthma, phenotype, age, preference, and individual factors. In addition to medications, the identification of comorbidities and modifiable factors is crucial to obtaining good control. Asthma in children is heterogeneous, and its evolution varies over time. Since most recommendations for asthma management in childhood are extrapolated from clinical studies performed in adults, more clinical trials specifically designed for young children should be conducted.

Population-Based Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Omalizumab in Pediatric Patients with Moderate to Severe Persistent Inadequately Controlled Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first approved anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) agent for the treatment of moderate to severe persistent inadequately controlled allergic asthma in adults and adolescents (≥ 12 years old). In 2016, it was approved in pediatric patients (6-11 years old). The objective of this study was to quantitatively characterize the relationship between serum free IgE and pulmonary function (as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]) in pediatrics using a population-based pharmacodynamic model. Data collected during the steroid-stable period (first 24 weeks) of an omalizumab trial with pediatric asthma patients (Study IA05) were used to build the pediatric IgE-FEV1 model. The previously developed population IgE-FEV1 model in adults/adolescents was adapted to characterize the FEV1 and IgE relationship in pediatrics with different magnitude and onset of response. The pediatric IgE-FEV1 model adequately characterized the IgE-FEV1 relationship in pediatrics, particularly at the extremes of the observed body weights (i.e., ≤ 30 kg) and IgE values at screening (i.e., > 700 IU/mL). The estimated sigmoidal free IgE-FEV1 curves were similar in shape and maximum effect, but the estimated free IgE concentration leading to 50% maximum effect (IC50) in pediatric patients (39.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 24.3-63.9 ng/mL) was higher than estimated in adults (19.8, 95% CI 15.1-24.5 ng/mL). The model further confirmed that the current omalizumab dosing rationale based on the mean target free IgE level of 25 ng/ml was appropriate. The pediatric model can be used to predict population FEV1 response for omalizumab when combined with an omalizumab pharmacokinetic-IgE model.

The clinical efficacy of type 2 monoclonal antibodies in eosinophil-associated chronic airway diseases: a meta-analysis

Background

Anti-type 2 inflammation therapy has been proposed as a treatment strategy for eosinophil-associated chronic airway disorders that could reduce exacerbations and improve lung function. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of type 2 monoclonal antibodies (anti-T2s) for eosinophil-associated chronic airway disorders.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 21 August 2022. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of anti-T2s versus placebo in the treatment of chronic airway diseases were selected. The outcomes were exacerbation rate and change in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) from baseline. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 1.0 was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the random-effects or fixed-effect model were used to pool the data.

Results

Thirty-eight articles concerning forty-one randomized clinical trials with 17,115 patients were included. Compared with placebo, anti-T2s therapy yielded a significant reduction in exacerbation rate in COPD and asthma (Rate Ratio (RR)=0.89, 95%CI, 0.83-0.95, I2 = 29.4%; RR= 0.59, 95%CI, 0.52-0.68, I2 = 83.9%, respectively) and improvement in FEV1 in asthma (Standard Mean Difference (SMD)=0.09, 95%CI, 0.08-0.11, I2 = 42.6%). Anti-T2s therapy had no effect on FEV1 improvement in COPD (SMD=0.05, 95%CI, -0.01-0.10, I2 = 69.8%).

Conclusion

Despite inconsistent findings across trials, anti-T2s had a positive overall impact on patients' exacerbation rate in asthma and COPD and FEV1 in asthma. Anti-T2s may be effective in treating chronic airway illnesses related to eosinophils.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022362280.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of severe pediatric allergic asthma-Results of a real-life study in Spain

BACKGROUND

Severe pediatric allergic asthma (SPAA) induces a huge economic burden in terms of direct, indirect, and intangible costs. The use of omalizumab for the treatment of these patients has produced a significant improvement in several clinical outcomes, but at the same time, the cost for the management of the disease has also increased. The aim of this report was to evaluate whether the use of omalizumab is cost-effective.

METHODS

A sample of 426 children with SPAA from the ANCHORS (Asthma iN CHildren: Omalizumab in Real-life in Spain) study was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the avoidance of moderate-to-severe exacerbations (MSE) and also for the improvement in childhood Asthma Control Test (c-ACT) or the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5). We retrospectively collected data on health encounters and drug consumption before and up to 6 years after the beginning of the treatment with omalizumab.

RESULTS

The ICER per avoided MSE was €2107 after 1 year, and it consistently decreased to €656 in those followed up to 6 years. Similarly, the ICER for the minimally important difference in control tests showed a decrease from €2059 to €380 per each 0.5 points of improvement in ACQ5 and from €3141 to €2322 per each 3 points improvement in c-ACT, at years 1 and 6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of OMZ is a cost-effective option for most children with uncontrolled SPAA, especially those who have frequent exacerbations; the costs are progressively reduced in successive years of treatment.

Incremental net monetary benefit of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I²=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I²=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I²=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.

Severe pediatric asthma therapy: Omalizumab-A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety profile

Background

Omalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine two critical outcomes of omalizumab therapy, asthma exacerbation rate, the reduction of the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and the improvement of the lung function as a secondary outcome using the following keywords in the MEDLINE database: "anti-IgE, severe asthma, children, and randomized controlled trial." We specifically selected papers that included moderate-to-severe asthma patients and collected data on children and adolescents.

Results

Four RCT studies (total number of patients = 1,239) were included in the analysis. The reported data on exacerbations showed an overall improvement in the exacerbation rate with a decreased use of inhaled steroids and some other minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Conclusions

Our systematic review confirms the known findings that omalizumab therapy decreases asthma exacerbation rate and reduces background therapy inhaled steroid dose. Therefore, add-on therapy with omalizumab shows a good efficacy and safety profile, thus proving to be a useful additional therapeutic option.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023396785.

Biologics in the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents

Severe asthma in childhood confers substantial patient- and society-level burdens. Although biologics have been available for the management in adults and adolescents for nearly 20 years, research on the efficacy and safety of biologics in children and adolescents has lagged. Fortunately, more recent research specifically in children has provided an evidence base for biologic use in this age group. Most children with severe asthma demonstrate a type 2 inflammatory phenotype, the primary target of currently approved biologics. Three biologics, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and duplilumab, are Food and Drug Administration-approved for children as young as 6 years, whereas benralizumab and tezepelumab are approved for adolescents older than 12 years. All these agents reduce the rates of severe asthma exacerbations, whereas their effects on pulmonary function vary across agents. Safety profiles are reassuring, although additional long-term safety data in children are still needed. The choice of a biologic agent follows a careful assessment of other factors that contribute to uncontrolled asthma and includes biomarkers of blood eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, allergic sensitization, and IgE levels. This review focuses on the underlying pathophysiology of childhood asthma, an approach to phenotyping patients, and the efficacy, safety, and use of biologics in children and adolescents with severe asthma.

Asthma Management in Adults

Management of asthma in adults has advanced in the past 10 years. Central to these advances has been further clarification of type (T) 2 mechanisms of airway inflammation and utilization of T2 biomarkers, that is, eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. In addition, epithelial cells are emerging as significant contributors to inflammation through generation of alarmins to initiate local injury as well as downstream pathways. Five new biologics, mepolizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, were approved to join omalizumab and revolutionize severe asthma treatment. These biologics significantly prevent exacerbations to spare systemic corticosteroids use and their side effects. Guidelines attest to the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β-agonists (formoterol) for both maintenance and rescue therapy. Focused updates to the Expert Panel Report addressed limited but specific questions relevant to asthma control. Future guidelines should include phenotype/endotype-directed therapeutics to gain more precision-directed treatment.

IgE glycans promote anti-IgE IgG autoantibodies that facilitate IgE serum clearance via Fc Receptors

Background

Recent studies have shown that IgE glycosylation significantly impacts the ability of IgE to bind to its high-affinity receptor FcεRI and exert effector functions. We have recently demonstrated that immunizing mice with IgE in a complex with an allergen leads to a protective, glycan-dependent anti-IgE response. However, to what extent the glycans on IgE determine the induction of those antibodies and how they facilitate serum clearance is unclear.Therefore, we investigated the role of glycan-specific anti-IgE IgG autoantibodies in regulating serum IgE levels and preventing systemic anaphylaxis by passive immunization.

Methods

Mice were immunized using glycosylated or deglycosylated IgE-allergen-immune complexes (ICs) to induce anti-IgE IgG antibodies. The anti-IgE IgG antibodies were purified and used for passive immunization.

Results

Glycosylated IgE-ICs induced a significantly higher anti-IgE IgG response and more IgG-secreting plasma cells than deglycosylated IgE-ICs. Passive immunization of IgE-sensitized mice with purified anti-IgE IgG increased the clearance of IgE and prevented systemic anaphylaxis upon allergen challenge. Anti-IgE IgG purified from the serum of mice immunized with deglycosylated IgE-ICs, led to a significantly reduced elimination and protection, confirming that the IgE glycans themselves are the primary drivers of the protectivity induced by the IgE-immune complexes.

Conclusion

IgE glycosylation is essential for a robust anti-IgE IgG response and might be an important regulator of serum IgE levels.

Therapeutical Targets in Allergic Inflammation

From the discovery of IgE to the in-depth characterization of Th2 cells and ILC2, allergic inflammation has been extensively addressed to find potential therapeutical targets. To date, omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, and dupilumab, an anti-IL-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody, represent two pillars of biologic therapy of allergic inflammation. Their increasing indications and long-term follow-up studies are shaping the many different faces of allergy. At the same time, their limitations are showing the intricate pathogenesis of allergic diseases.

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Biologic Therapies in Pediatric Asthma

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

The new era of add-on asthma treatments: where do we stand?

Globally, a small proportion (5-12%) of asthma patients are estimated to have severe disease. However, severe asthma accounts for disproportionately high healthcare resource utilization. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) management committee recommends treating patients with asthma with inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists and, when needed, adding a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist or biologic agent. Five biologics, targeting different effectors in the type 2 inflammatory pathway, are approved for asthma treatment. However, biologics have not been compared against each other or add-on inhaled therapies in head-to-head clinical trials. As a result, their positioning versus that of current and anticipated small-molecule strategies is largely unknown. Furthermore, with the emergence of biomarkers for predicting response to biologics, a more personalized treatment approach-currently lacking with inhaled therapies-may be possible. To gain perspective, we reviewed recent advances in asthma pathophysiology, phenotypes, and biomarkers; the place of biologics in the management and personalized treatment of severe asthma; and the future of biologics and small-molecule drugs. We propose an algorithm for the stepwise treatment of severe asthma based on recommendations in the GINA strategy document that accounts for the broad range of phenotypes targeted by inhaled therapies and the specificity of biologics. In the future, both biologics and small molecules will continue to play key roles in the individualized treatment of severe asthma. However, as targeted therapies, their application will continue to be focused on patients with certain phenotypes who meet the specific criteria for use as identified in pivotal clinical trials.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

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

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe or Poorly Controlled Allergic Diseases in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of severe or uncontrolled allergic diseases in children.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov databases up to 23rd July 2021, with no language limitations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with other treatments or placebo in children with severe or inadequately controlled allergic diseases were considered. The primary outcomes of interest were asthma exacerbation rate, allergic symptom score, desensitisation achievement for food allergy (FA), and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). The study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers. Quality assessments were conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and data were pooled using a random-effects model if I ² was 50% or greater in the Cochrane Review Manager.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 RCTs [six on severe asthma, one on atopic dermatitis (AD), one on seasonal allergic rhinitis [SAR], and one on FA] consisting of 2,376 participants met the inclusion criteria. For severe asthma, omalizumab may reduce exacerbations at 12 weeks [risk ratio (RR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.89], 24 weeks (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence), and 52 weeks (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence) and reduce the dose of inhalation corticosteroid compared with placebo. For severe AD, the association between omalizumab and allergic symptom improvement [i.e., SCORing Atopic Dermatitis or Paediatric Allergic Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PADQLQ)] was not confirmed. For severe SAR, omalizumab showed greater improvement in symptom load scores and saved rescue medication days. For FA, omalizumab demonstrated superiority in desensitisation compared with placebo. To date, no clinically significant drug-related SAEs have been reported.

CONCLUSION

For severe or uncontrolled asthma, AD, SAR, and FA, omalizumab may be associated with improved allergic symptoms and safety in children. Future studies should focus on the benefits and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of omalizumab in multiple allergic diseases compared with other treatments.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42021271863].

The use of biologics in personalized asthma care

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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

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

Biologics for Asthma and Allergic Skin Diseases in Children

An estimated 7 million children in the United States have asthma, which causes a significant health care burden and affects quality of life. The minority of these children have asthma that does not respond to Global Initiative for Asthma steps 4 and 5 care, and biological medications are recommended at this level in the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. In addition, biologics have been introduced into the care of children with allergic skin diseases. Omalizumab and mepolizumab are approved for children as young as 6 years, and benralizumab and dupilumab are approved for people aged ≥12 years. Reslizumab is approved only for people aged ≥18 years. These monoclonal antibodies may be added for appropriate patients when asthma or allergic skin diseases are not well controlled. Pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists should work together and be aware of the benefits and risks of these medications for their patients, as well as the practical implications of providing these options for their patients. This clinical report serves as an evaluation of the current literature on these types of medications in the treatment of children with asthma and allergic skin disease.

Pediatric problematic severe asthma: Recent advances in management

Problematic severe asthma remains a significant challenge to manage, accounting for the majority of healthcare utilization among children with asthma. The heterogeneity is recognized and the clinical phenotypes of "difficult-to-treat" asthma (DA) and "severe therapy-resistant asthma" (STRA) help to guide management. Recent evidence supports molecular distinctions between these phenotypes and shows poor correlations between peripheral and airway markers of inflammation, especially in STRA. Airway neutrophils in the context of childhood severe asthma have been explored, but their role in disease causation, protection, or as bystanders remain unknown, and thus, treatment implications are unclear. Several novel management strategies, including once-daily maintenance therapy, single-device maintenance and reliever therapy, and novel biological treatments are being increasingly used for DA and STRA. However, pediatric data for efficacy of novel treatments is scarce, and when available, is restricted to adolescents. The aim of this review is to highlight recent advances in objective biomarkers that aid stratification and management of childhood severe asthma and to highlight gaps in pediatric evidence. Specifically, the urgent need for efficacy studies to improve the management of problematic severe asthma in children younger than 12 years.

Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for severe asthma: A systematic review

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases characterized by sex disparities. Gender bias is a well-documented issue detected in the design of published clinical trials (CTs). International guidelines encourage researchers to analyze clinical data by sex, gender, or both where appropriate. The objective of this work was to evaluate gender bias in the published CTs of biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma. A systematic review of randomized controlled CTs of the biological agents (omalizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, mepolizumab or dupilumab) for the treatment of severe asthma was conducted. The literature search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE without language restrictions. This study followed the corresponding international recommendations. We identified a total of 426 articles, of which 37 were finally included. Women represented 60.4% of patients included. The mean percentage of women in these trials was 59.9%, ranged from 40.8% to 76.7%. The separate analysis by sex of the main variable was only performed in 5 of the 37 publications included, and none of the trials analyzed secondary variables by sex. Only 1 of the articles discussed the results separately by sex. No study included the concept of gender in the text or analyzed the results separately by gender. The proportion of women included in CTs was higher compared to publications of other disciplines, where women were under-represented. The analysis of the main and secondary variables by sex or gender, even the discussion separately by sex, was insufficient. This gives rise to potential gender bias in these CTs.

The Role of IgE in Upper and Lower Airway Disease: More Than Just Allergy!

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a well-known key factor in allergic airway disease; however, its central role in non-allergic airway inflammation is often underestimated. In some airway diseases, IgE is produced as a result of allergic sensitization. However, in others, IgE production occurs despite the lack of a specific allergen. Although multiple pathways contribute to the production of IgE in airway disease, it is its activity in mediating the inflammatory response that is associated with disease. Therefore, an understanding of IgE as the unifying component of upper and lower airway diseases has important implications for both diagnosis and treatment. Understanding the role of IgE in each upper and lower airway disease highlights its potential utility as a diagnostic marker and therapeutic target. Further classification of these diseases by whether they are IgE mediated or non–IgE mediated, rather than by the existence of an underlying allergic component, accounts for both systemic and localized IgE activity. Improvements in diagnostic methodologies and standardization of clinical practices with this classification in mind can help identify patients with IgE-mediated diseases. In doing so, this group of patients can receive optimal care through targeted anti-IgE therapeutics, which have already demonstrated efficacy across numerous IgE-mediated upper and lower airway diseases.

Novel Approaches in the Inhibition of IgE-Induced Mast Cell Reactivity in Food Allergy

Allergy is an IgE-dependent type-I hypersensitivity reaction that can lead to life-threatening systemic symptoms such as anaphylaxis. In the pathogenesis of the allergic response, the common upstream event is the binding of allergens to specific IgE, inducing cross-linking of the high-affinity FcεRI on mast cells, triggering cellular degranulation and the release of histamine, proteases, lipids mediators, cytokines and chemokines with inflammatory activity. A number of novel therapeutic options to curb mast cell activation are in the pipeline for the treatment of severe allergies. In addition to anti-IgE therapy and allergen-specific immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies targeted against several key Th2/alarmin cytokines (i.e. IL-4Rα, IL-33, TSLP), active modification of allergen-specific IgE (i.e. inhibitory compounds, monoclonal antibodies, de-sialylation), engagement of inhibitory receptors on mast cells and allergen-specific adjuvant vaccines, are new promising options to inhibit the uncontrolled release of mast cell mediators upon allergen exposure. In this review, we critically discuss the novel approaches targeting mast cells limiting allergic responses and the immunological mechanisms involved, with special interest on food allergy treatment.

Effectiveness and Safety Studies of Omalizumab in Children and Adolescents With Moderate-To-Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is currently approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in patients 6 years and older.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as an add-on therapy option for moderate-severe allergic asthma in patients aged 6-20 years old.

METHODS

The studies published from July, 1970 to May, 2021 were searched from the electronic databases which followed keywords: ("anti-IgE" OR "anti-immunoglobulin E" OR "anti-IgE antibody" OR "omalizumab" OR "rhuMAb-E25" OR "Xolair") AND "asthma" AND ("child" OR "children" OR "adolescents" OR "youth" OR "teenager" OR "kids" OR "pediatric"). Thirteen studies were pooled to determine the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab. Efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model depending on heterogeneity. Safety endpoints were evaluated by odds ratio.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. In this meta-analysis, our results showed that fractional exhaled nitric oxide and asthma control test scores were significantly improved with omalizumab treatment. Serum immunoglobulin E was also decreased in children with moderate-to-severe asthma after treatment with omalizumab. The analysis found that there was no significant difference between pre-and post-treatment in forced expiratory volume in one second/ forced vital capacity ratio, forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of vital capacity, or FEV1. Overall, more adverse events occurred with omalizumab compared to placebo. However, the degree was mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that omalizumab is safe and effective to treat children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Effectiveness of omalizumab in children and adolescents with uncontrolled allergic asthma: a case series from Poland

Introduction

Omalizumab has been successfully used as a supplementary therapy to improve asthma control in children aged ≥ 6 years with moderate or severe persistent allergic asthma.

Aim

To evaluate effectiveness ofomalizumab in children and adolescents with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

Material and methods

Seventeen children and adolescents aged 8–16, treated with omalizumab from 2011 until now, were enrolled into the retrospective, open, uncontrolled, observational study. The effectiveness of therapy, asthma control, quality of life, exacerbation rate, corticosteroid use, were assessed after 16, 52 and 104 weeks of treatment and after omalizumab cessation.

Results

The response to treatment was assessed as excellent (9 patients) and good (6 patients), according to global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE). A statistically significant decrease in use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) was observed. The doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) decreased significantly (the mean dose of ICS converted to a dose of budesonide before treatment was 1503.53 μg/day versus 903.53 μg after discontinuation). The mean asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) value decreased from 2.10 to 0.84 points and the mean mini asthma quality of life questionnaire (miniAQLQ) outcome increased from 4.37 to 6.1 points. The mean number of exacerbations decreased from 5.59 to 0.53 per year.

Conclusions

Our results are supportive of the existing evidence that omalizumab therapy improves asthma control, reduces OCS and ICS use, decreases exacerbations in children and adolescents with severe/moderate uncontrolled allergic asthma.

Real-life long-term safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in Japanese pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma: A post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is approved as add-on therapy for pediatric asthma since 2013 in Japan, however, its data in clinical practice is limited. This post-marketing surveillance aimed to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in Japanese pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma in real-life setting.

METHODS

This 104-week, multicenter surveillance was conducted from September 2013 to May 2019 by central registration method. Patients with severe allergic asthma aged ≥6 and < 15 years at initiation of treatment who were first-time omalizumab users were included. The primary endpoints included incidence of adverse drug reactions and physician's Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The secondary endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events, adverse events and adverse drug reactions of special interest and asthma exacerbation-related events.

RESULTS

Of the 128 patients enrolled, 127 completed the surveillance and were included for safety and effectiveness analysis. Thirteen patients experienced 20 adverse drug reactions with an incidence rate of 10.2%. The most frequent adverse drug reactions were pyrexia (2.4%) and urticaria (1.6%). In total, adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in 60 (47.2%) and 30 patients (23.6%) respectively. Two patients experienced anaphylactic reaction and 1 patient experienced type 1 hypersensitivity. 77.2% had an effective response to omalizumab according to GETE at final assessment, and frequency of all asthma exacerbation-related events decreased in post-treatment versus pre-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term omalizumab treatment showed no new safety signals in pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma. The observed safety and effectiveness profile was consistent with previous studies.

The role of CD23 in the regulation of allergic responses

IgE, the key molecule in atopy has been shown to bind two receptors, FcεRI, the high‐affinity receptor, and FcεRII (CD23), binding IgE with lower affinity. Whereas cross‐linking of IgE on FcεRI expressed by mast cells and basophils triggers the allergic reaction, binding of IgE to CD23 on B cells plays an important role in both IgE regulation and presentation. Furthermore, IgE‐immune complexes (IgE‐ICs) bound by B cells enhance antibody and T cell responses in mice and humans. However, the mechanisms that regulate the targeting of the two receptors and the respective function of the two pathways in inflammation or homeostasis are still a matter of debate. Here, we focus on CD23 and discuss several mechanisms related to IgE binding, as well as the impact of the IgE/antigen‐binding on different immune cells expressing CD23. One recent paper has shown that free IgE preferentially binds to FcεRI whereas IgE‐ICs are preferentially captured by CD23. Binding of IgE‐ICs to CD23 on B cells can, on one hand, regulate serum IgE and prevent effector cell activation and on the other hand facilitate antigen presentation by delivering the antigen to dendritic cells. These data argue for a multifunctional role of CD23 for modulating IgE serum levels and immune responses.

Precision Medicine for Paediatric Severe Asthma: Current Status and Future Direction

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, characterised by different phenotypes and endotypes. Precision medicine in asthma refers to the implementation of a targeted therapy for each individual child, based on the identification of treatable traits, including environmental, immunological and genetic factors. Severe asthma in children is associated with increased hospitalisation rates, a lower quality of life, increased healthcare costs and an increased mortality. In the era of new molecular biologics treatments, it is essential to improve deep phenotyping of children with severe asthma in order to deliver the most effective treatment to each individual child. In this review, we discuss the personalised approach to the assessment and management of severe asthma. We explore the indications and use of the currently licensed biologics, as well as the potential of other emerging treatments.

Biological Therapies in Children and Adolescents with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma: A Practical Review

Severe uncontrolled asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease. A multidisciplinary assessment is required to correctly identify and manage children and adolescents with severe asthma because they may require strict monitoring and additional treatment with advanced targeted therapies. Recent research efforts have focused on identifying epidemiologic, clinical, and molecular mechanisms that underlie severe asthma, leading to the recognition of different phenotypes and endotypes and identifying biomarkers able to predict the response to biologic therapies. Additional progress has occurred by introducing biological therapies that have revolutionized the care of chronic allergic diseases in the adult and pediatric population. In this review, we briefly summarized the current literature on biological therapies to treat severe asthma in children and adolescents.

Safety and effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of chronic urticaria in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Evidence on safety and effectiveness of omalizumab for treatment of chronic urticaria in pediatric patients is scarce and limited to case reports. In particular, drug survival of omalizumab has not yet been investigated, which is a key element in the evaluation of its clinical performance. The aim of this study was to investigate safety, effectiveness, and drug survival rates of omalizumab in a daily practice cohort of pediatric patients with chronic urticaria (CU).

METHODS

This is a multicenter study including all pediatric patients from an academic center (Wilhelmina Children's Hospital) and a general center (Diakonessenhuis Hospital) in the Netherlands, who started omalizumab treatment before the age of 18 years. Data on safety, effectiveness, time to discontinuation, and reasons for discontinuation of treatment were assessed. Drug survival of omalizumab was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients, who started treatment between January 2014 and January 2020, were included. Most patients (68.4%) used omalizumab without reporting any side effects and a complete or good response to treatment was achieved in 76.3% of patients. The 1- and 2-year drug survival rates were 62% and 50%, respectively, with well-controlled disease activity as the most frequent reason for discontinuation in 69.2% of patients, followed by ineffectiveness in 23.1% and side effects in 7.7% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates high safety and effectiveness of omalizumab treatment in pediatric patients with CU, which will aid clinical decision making and management of expectations when choosing omalizumab treatment for pediatric patients with CU.

Glycan-specific IgG anti-IgE autoantibodies are protective against allergic anaphylaxis in a murine model

BACKGROUND

IgE causes anaphylaxis in type I hypersensitivity diseases by activating degranulation of effector cells such as mast cells and basophils. The mechanisms that control IgE activity and prevent anaphylaxis under normal conditions are still enigmatic.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to unravel how anti-IgE autoantibodies are induced and we aimed to understand their role in regulating serum IgE level and allergic anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We immunized mice with different forms of IgE and tested anti-IgE autoantibody responses and their specificities. We then analyzed the effect of those antibodies on serum kinetics and their in vitro and in vivo impact on anaphylaxis. Finally, we investigated anti-IgE autoantibodies in human sera.

RESULTS

Immunization of mice with IgE-immune complexes induced glycan-specific anti-IgE autoantibodies. The anti-IgE autoantibodies prevented effector cell sensitization, reduced total IgE serum levels, protected mice from passive and active IgE sensitization, and resulted in cross-protection against different allergens. Furthermore, glycan-specific anti-IgE autoantibodies were present in sera from subjects with allergy and subjects without allergy.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study provided the first evidence that in the murine model, the serum level and anaphylactic activity of IgE may be downregulated by glycan-specific IgG anti-IgE autoantibodies.

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Continuous Treatment Versus Boosting Treatment

The implications of boosting Omalizumab treatment (OT) in patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) remain unclear. The study aimed to explore and compare the 12-month effectiveness between continuous, at least 10-month OT (continuation group) and four-month boost of Omalizumab (boost group) in adult patients with SAA. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were collected for further analysis. Of all participants (n = 124), a significant reduction in annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.8 ± 1.5, follow-up = 0.5 ± 1.0, p = 0.047 *) and improvement in small airway ventilation as evaluated by forced expiratory flow at 25–75% (baseline = 55.1 ± 11.1%, follow-up = 59.4 ± 8.4%, p < 0.001 *) were found in the continuation group (n = 110). By contrast, the boost group (n = 14) had significantly increased annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.7 ± 1.4, follow-up = 2.9 ± 3.6, p = 0.031 *) and impaired small airway function (baseline = 55.3 ± 12.9, follow-up = 52.1 ± 12.5, p = 0.026 *). Furthermore, the continuation group rather than the boost group had significant decreases in the frequency of oral corticosteroid (OCS) use as controllers (baseline = 32.7%, follow-up = 20.0%, p = 0.047 *; baseline = 50.0%, follow-up = 21.4%, p = 0.237, respectively) and OCS maintenance dose (mg/month) (baseline = 85.9 ± 180.8, follow-up = 45.8 ± 106.6, p = 0.020 *; baseline = 171.4 ± 221.5, follow-up = 50.0 ± 104.3, p = 0.064, respectively), and increases in asthma control test scores (baseline = 16.0 ± 3.0, follow-up = 19.8 ± 4.4, p < 0.001 *; baseline = 14.6 ± 3.8, follow-up = 19.7 ± 4.7, p = 0.050, respectively). Continuous OT would be beneficial for adult patients with SAA, while boost of Omalizumab would worsen their long-term outcomes.