Anti-IL-5 treatments in patients with severe asthma by blood eosinophil thresholds: Indirect treatment comparison

Temporal variation in the effectiveness of biologics in asthma: Effect modification by changing patient characteristics

BACKGROUND

The underlying population of patients selected for each respiratory monoclonal antibody might change as other biologics are approved.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effect modification by calendar time of the effectiveness of each respiratory biologics in asthma.

METHODS

The Effectiveness of Respiratory biologics in Asthma (ERA) is a retrospective cohort of severe asthma patients from the Mass General Brigham clinics between January 2013 and September 2023. Periods were pre-specified as the anti-IgE (2013-2015), anti-IL5 (2016-2018), anti-IL4/13 (2019-2021) or anti-alarmin (2022-2023) era. We evaluated each biologic's effect on asthma-related exacerbations comparing the one-year period before and after therapy initiation using Poisson regression and Cox regression for time-to-first exacerbation.

RESULTS

Of 647 biologic-naïve patients, 165 initiated omalizumab, 235 anti-IL5, 227 dupilumab, and 20 tezepelumab. Omalizumab's effectiveness improved as more biologics were approved: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.16 [0.94-1.43] anti-IgE era vs. 0.54 [0.37-0.80] anti-IL4/13-alarmin era. Omalizumab patients in the anti-IL4/13-alarmin era had lower blood eosinophil counts and less chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). For anti-IL5s, effectiveness peaked in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.52 [0.42-0.64]) when patients had higher BMI and less concomitant CRSwNP. Dupilumab was most effective in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.60 [0.50-0.72]). There were fewer current smokers in dupilumab patients in the anti-IL4/13 era. Results were similar in time-to-event analyses and in sensitivity analyses accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

There are temporal variations in the effectiveness of biologics partly explained by the shift in the underlying population, particularly for omalizumab. Though having more choices was associated with better patient selection for omalizumab, this was inconsistent for other biologics.

Smaller Differences in the Comparative Effectiveness of Biologics in Reducing Asthma-Related Hospitalizations Compared With Overall Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of respiratory biologics remains sparse.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in a matched retrospective cohort of patients with asthma.

METHODS

We identified patients with asthma aged ≥18 years who were incident users of these biologics between November 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023, in administrative claims data from the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database. We compared asthma-related exacerbations and hospitalizations in the 12 months since biologic prescription in pairwise comparisons of propensity score-matched cohorts. Covariates used in matching included age, sex, allergic comorbidities, baseline asthma medications use, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients on mepolizumab, 1300 on benralizumab, 1170 on omalizumab, and 1863 on dupilumab were identified. The average age was 55 years, and two-thirds of the participants were female. At baseline, over 80% of these individuals had an active prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Almost half of patients on dupilumab had concomitant nasal polyposis compared with 6% to 13% of patients on the other biologics. Covariates were balanced after matching. In matched analyses, dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of exacerbations over the follow-up period (vs dupilumab): mepolizumab (IRR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.64), omalizumab (IRR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.58), benralizumab (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41). For exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, benralizumab and mepolizumab were associated with the lowest incidence of hospitalizations, and the greatest difference was between mepolizumab versus dupilumab (IRR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of overall exacerbations, and mepolizumab with the lowest incidence of asthma hospitalizations in this administrative claims-based cohort of individuals with asthma. Despite matching propensity scores, residual confounding, such as baseline eosinophil count, may explain some of these findings.

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.

Association between protein intake, serum albumin and blood eosinophil in US asthmatic adults

Background

Presently, numerous studies have indicated that protein consumption and levels of blood albumin serve as important biomarkers for a range of respiratory illnesses. However, there have been few investigations into the correlation between protein consumption, serum albumin, and asthma.

Methods

Our analysis incorporated 2509 asthmatics from the 2011-2018 NHANES dataset. The investigation employed three linear regression models and XGBoost model to investigate the potential link between protein intake, serum albumin levels, and blood eosinophil counts (BEOC) in patients with asthma. The trend test, generalized additive model (GAM), and threshold effect model were utilized to validate this correlation. As well, we undertook stratified analyses to look at the correlation of serum albumin with BEOC among distinct populations.

Results

In the univariable regression model, which did not account for any covariates, we observed a positive correlation between protein intake and BEOC. However, univariable and multivariable regression analyses all suggested a negative connection of serum albumin with BEOC in asthma populations. In Model C, which took into account all possible factors, BEOC dropped by 2.82 cells/uL for every unit increase in serum albumin (g/L). Additionally, the GAM and threshold effect model validated that serum albumin and BEOC showed an inverted U-shaped correlation.

Conclusion

Our investigation discovered there was no independent link between asthmatics' protein intake and BEOC. However, we observed an inverted U-shaped relationship between serum albumin levels and BEOC, suggesting a possible relationship between the overall nutritional status of asthmatics and immune system changes. Our findings provide new directions for future research in the field of asthma management and therapy.

Ratio of plasma IL-13/TNF- ∝ and CXCL10/CCL17 predicts mepolizumab and omalizumab response in asthma better than eosinophil count or immunoglobulin E level

To date, most studies to identify biomarkers associated with response to the anti-interleukin 5 agent, mepolizumab, and to the anti-immunoglobulin E agent, omalizumab have focused on clinically available biomarkers, such as the peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and total immunoglobulin E (IgE). However, these biomarkers often have low predictive accuracy, with many patients with eosinophilic or allergic asthma failing to demonstrate clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab respectively. In this study, we evaluated the association of baseline pre-biologic plasma levels of 26 cytokines and chemokines, including T-helper 1 (Th1)-, Th2-, Th17-related cytokines, and their ratios with subsequent clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab. We defined clinical response as a reduction in the baseline annual exacerbation rate by half or more over the one-year period following initiation of the biologic. Baseline levels of plasma IL-13 were differentially elevated in responders versus non-responders to mepolizumab and plasma CXCL10 levels were differentially elevated in responders to omalizumab. The ratio of IL-13/TNF-α had the best sensitivity and specificity in predicting response to mepolizumab and CXCL10/CCL17 to omalizumab, and these performed better as predictive biomarkers of response than BEC and IgE. Cytokines and chemokines associated with airway eosinophilia, allergic inflammation, or Th2 inflammation, such as IL-13 and CXCL10, may be better predictors of clinical response to mepolizumab and omalizumab, than IL-5 or IgE, the targets of mepolizumab and omalizumab.

Prospective direct comparison of biologic treatments for severe eosinophilic asthma: Findings from the PRISM study

BACKGROUND

Although various monoclonal antibodies have been used as add-on therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), to the best of our knowledge, no direct head-to-head comparative study has evaluated their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of reslizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in patients with SEA.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective observational study in patients with SEA who had received 1 of these biologic agents for at least 6 months. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk of the first exacerbation event, adjusting for sputum or blood eosinophils and common asthma-related covariates. The annual exacerbation rate was analyzed using a negative binomial model, and a mixed-effect model was used to analyze changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and asthma control test score over time.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients with SEA were included in the analysis; 71 (50%) received dupilumab; 40 (28%) received reslizumab, and 30 (21%) received mepolizumab. During the 12-month follow-up, 27.5%, 43.3%, and 38.0% of patients in the reslizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab groups, respectively, experienced at least 1 exacerbation. However, after adjusting for confounding factors, the dupilumab and mepolizumab groups showed similar outcomes in time-to-first exacerbation, exacerbation rate, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and asthma control test score to those of the reslizumab group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with SEA, treatment with reslizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab resulted in comparable clinical outcomes within a 12-month period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The cohort protocol was sanctioned by the Institutional Review Board of each study center (clinicaltrial.gov identifier NCT05164939).

Long-term multicenter comparison shows equivalent efficacy of monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma therapy

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (biologics) drastically changed severe asthma therapy. Mepolizumab (anti-interleukin (IL) 5), benralizumab (anti-IL5 receptor alpha), and dupilumab (anti-IL4/13) are the most used biologics in this context. While all biologics are efficient individually, the choice of biologic is complicated by insufficient data on their comparative long-term treatment efficacy. Here, we compare the real-life efficacy of these biologics in asthma therapy over 12 months.

METHODS

280 severe asthma patients treated with mepolizumab (129/280, 46%), benralizumab (83/280, 30%) or dupilumab (68/280, 24%) for one year were analyzed retrospectively. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. Endpoints were changes pulmonary function (PF), exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and dose, asthma control test (ACT) score and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels as well as responder status measured by the recently published "Biologic Asthma Response Score" (BARS).

RESULTS

All biologics led to significant improvements in PF, ACT and OCS dose. Only Mepolizumab and Benralizumab significantly decreased the exacerbation rate, while only Mepolizumab and Dupilumab significantly decreased FeNO. Responder rates measured by BARS were high across all groups: roughly half of all patients achieved full response and most of the remainder achieved at least partial responder status. Overall, outcomes were similar between groups after both 6 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

All biologics showed great efficacy in individual parameters and high responder rates measured by BARS without a clinically relevant advantage for any antibody. Response was usually achieved after 6 months and retained at 12 months, emphasizing the utility of early response assessment.

Low Serum IL-18 Levels May Predict the Effectiveness of Dupilumab in Severe Asthma

Objective Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody specific for the human interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α, is used to treat severe asthma, especially in patients with elevated blood eosinophil counts and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). The therapeutic response to dupilumab is highly variable. In this study, we explored new serum biomarkers to accurately predict the effect of dupilumab and examine the effect of dupilumab based on changes in the clinical parameters and cytokine levels. Methods Seventeen patients with severe asthma treated with dupilumab were enrolled. Responders, defined as those with a >0.5-point decrease in the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score after 6 months of treatment, were included. Results There were 10 responders and 7 non-responders. Serum type 2 cytokines were equivalent between responders and non-responders; the baseline serum IL-18 level was significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (responders, 194.9±51.0 pg/mL; non-responders, 323.4±122.7 pg/mL, p=0.013). The cut-off value of IL-18 at 230.5 pg/mL could be used to distinguish non-responders from responders (sensitivity 71.4, specificity 80.0, p=0.032). Conclusion A low baseline serum IL-18 level may be a useful predictor of an unfavorable response to dupilumab in terms of the ACQ-6.

Immunogenicity of biologics used in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is a major global disease affecting adults and children, which can lead to hospitalization and death due to breathing difficulties. Although targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have revolutionized treatment of severe asthma, some patients still fail to respond. Here we critically evaluate the literature on biologic therapy failure in asthma patients with particular reference to anti-drug antibody production, and subsequent loss of response, as the potential primary cause of drug failure in asthma patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Encouragingly, asthma in most cases responds to treatment, including the use of an increasing number of biologic drugs in moderate to severe disease. This includes monoclonal antibody inhibitors of immunoglobulin E and cytokines, including interleukin 4, 5, or 13 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. These limit mast cell and eosinophil activity that cause the symptomatic small airways obstruction and exacerbations.

SUMMARY

Despite humanization of the antibodies, it is evident that benralizumab; dupilumab; mepolizumab; omalizumab; reslizumab and tezepelumab all induce anti-drug antibodies to some extent. These can contribute to adverse events including infusion reactions, serum sickness, anaphylaxis and potentially disease activity due to loss of therapeutic function. Monitoring anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may allow prediction of future treatment-failure in some individuals allowing treatment cessation and switching therefore potentially limiting disease breakthrough.

A cross-sectional study to evaluate utility measure and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in Spain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The utility measure is a method to quantify health-related quality of life according to the preference values that patients attach to their health status. This study aimed to estimate the utility measure of patients with controlled and uncontrolled severe asthma (SA) in Spain, separately. Additionally, other characteristics (sociodemographic, clinical, and healthcare resource use [HCRU]) were also assessed for both SA populations.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 159 patients with SA in Spain. Data were collected from medical records and directly from the patients during the study visit. Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 was used to classify patients with controlled and uncontrolled SA.

RESULTS

Most of the patients were female (72.0% uncontrolled SA and 63.6% controlled SA). The mean (SD) EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) score was 0.88 (0.14) and 0.70 (0.25) in controlled and uncontrolled SA, respectively. The mean (SD) Asthma Quality-of-Life-5D (AQL-5D) score was 0.93 (0.09) and 0.85 (0.09) in controlled and uncontrolled SA, respectively. Emergency visits (19.2 vs. 2.7%) and hospitalizations (7.7% vs. no hospitalization) were more common among uncontrolled SA than controlled SA. Mean (SD) number of visits to primary care and pneumologists in uncontrolled SA vs. controlled SA was 4.1 (2.8) vs. 2.5 (3.0) and 3.7 (3.5) vs. 2.8 (2.2), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The study provides data on utility measures among patients with SA in Spain for the first time. Patients with uncontrolled SA had lower HRQoL and higher HCRU than patients with controlled SA. Therefore, the implementation of measures that improve HRQoL among patients with uncontrolled SA is highly recommended.

Benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment outcomes in two severe asthma clinics

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical outcomes of severe asthmatics treated with mepolizumab and benralizumab in a tertiary care severe asthma service setting.

METHODS

Patient data at baseline, six and 12 months were collected prospectively at two large tertiary hospital severe asthma clinics following treatment initiation. Two hundred and four patients received treatment with mepolizumab (117) or benralizumab (87). Baseline characteristics between groups were similar in regard to age, gender, body mass index, steroid dose and blood eosinophil count. However, the mepolizumab cohort had a higher Asthma Control Questionnaire Score (ACQ) at baseline (4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9, p = 0.018), accompanied by more frequent reliever medication usage and lower prebronchodilator FEV1 % (56.0 ± 20.1 vs. 63.8 ± 18.9, p = 0.008).

RESULTS

After 6 months treatment, both treatments induced significant improvements in (i) ACQ of 2.3 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001), (ii) oral steroid requiring exacerbations (incident rate ratio 0.26 (0.18-0.37), p < 0.001) and (iii) FEV1 . However, the improvement in FEV1 was 0.18 (0.05-0.30) litres greater with benralizumab than with mepolizumab (p = 0.002) even when adjusting statistically for baseline differences between groups. These differences were even more pronounced at 12 months post-treatment initiation, when the improvement in exacerbation frequency with benralizumab was 64% greater than with mepolizumab (p = 0.01). Whilst both treatments significantly reduced the blood eosinophil count at 6 and 12 months, this reduction was substantially greater with benralizumab than mepolizumab (-260 cells/μL [-400 to -110, p = 0.001]).

CONCLUSION

In this large group of severe eosinophilic asthmatics, mepolizumab and benralizumab both improved disease parameters. However, benralizumab treatment appeared significantly more effective than mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations, improving FEV1 and depleting blood eosinophils.

Eosinophil trafficking in allergen-mediated pulmonary inflammation relies on IL-13-driven CCL-11 and CCL-24 production by tissue fibroblasts and myeloid cells

Background

The immunologic mechanisms underlying pulmonary type 2 inflammation, including the dynamics of eosinophil recruitment to the lungs, still need to be elucidated.

Objective

We sought to investigate how IL-13-producing TH2 effector cells trigger eosinophil migration in house dust mite (HDM)-driven allergic pulmonary inflammation.

Methods

Multiparameter and molecular profiling of murine lungs with HDM-induced allergy was investigated in the absence of IL-13 signaling by using IL-13Rα1-deficient mice and separately through adoptive transfer of CD4+ T cells from IL-5-deficient mice into TCRα-/- mice before allergic inflammation.

Results

We demonstrated through single-cell techniques that HDM-driven pulmonary inflammation displays a profile characterized by TH2 effector cell-induced IL-13-dominated eosinophilic inflammation. Using HDM-sensitized IL-13Rα1-/- mice, we found a marked reduction in the influx of eosinophils into the lungs along with a significant downregulation of both CCL-11 and CCL-24. We further found that eosinophil trafficking to the lung relies on production of IL-13-driven CCL-11 and CCL-24 by fibroblasts and Ly6C+ (so-called classical) monocytes. Moreover, this IL-13-mediated eotaxin-dependent eosinophil influx to the lung tissue required IL-5-induced eosinophilia. Finally, we demonstrated that this IL-13-driven eosinophil-dominated pulmonary inflammation was critical for limiting bystander lung transiting Ascaris parasites in a model of allergy and helminth interaction.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that IL-5-dependent allergen-specific TH2 effector cell response and subsequent signaling through the IL-13/IL-13Rα1 axis in fibroblasts and myeloid cells regulate the eotaxin-dependent recruitment of eosinophils to the lungs, with multiple downstream consequences, including bystander control of lung transiting parasitic helminths.

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.

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

The emergence of biologic therapies for the management of asthma has been a revolutionary change in our capacity to manage this disease. Since the launch of omalizumab, several other biologics have been marketed or are close to being marketed, suggesting that a plethora of monoclonal antibodies can be expected in the coming years. This will facilitate the transition to the paradigm of personalized medicine, but on the other hand will decisively further complicate the choice of the most appropriate treatment, in the absence of reliable enough biological markers. For these reasons, along with the relatively short time of use with these treatments, there are recurrently arising questions for which there are not even moderately documented answers, and for which the only solution must be based, with all reservations, on the combination of indirect evidence and expertise. In this paper, we attempt to address such questions, providing relevant commentaries and considering the whole width of the evidence base.

[Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma]

Severe asthma affects 3%-10% of the world's population, according to estimates by the Global Initiative for ASTHMA (GINA). Allergic asthma is one of the most common phenotypes of severe asthma and it is characterized by allergen-induced type 2 inflammation in which immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a key mediator, making it an important therapeutic target. The introduction of targeted biological therapies or treatments has entered the management for severe asthma in the era of precision medicine, and the goal of treatment is clinical remission of the disease. There is a significant percentage of patients with severe allergic asthma who do not respond to treatments and whose symptoms are not controlled. In this paper, a group of experts in the management of severe allergic asthma reviewed and evaluated the most relevant evidence regarding the pathophysiology and phenotypes of severe allergic asthma, the role of IgE in allergic inflammation, allergen identification, techniques, biomarkers and diagnostic challenges, available treatments and strategies for disease management, with a special focus on biological treatments. From this review, recommendations were developed and validated through a Delphi consensus process with the aim of offering improvements in the management of severe allergic asthma to the professionals involved and identifying the unmet needs in the management of this pathology.

Abnormal adenosine metabolism of neutrophils inhibits airway inflammation and remodeling in asthma model induced by Aspergillus fumigatus

BACKGROUND

Neutrophils consume a large amount of energy when performing their functions. Compared with other white blood cells, neutrophils contain few mitochondria and mainly rely on glycolysis and gluconeogenesis to produce ATP. The inflammatory site is hypoxic and nutrient poor. Our aim is to study the role of abnormal adenosine metabolism of neutrophils in the asthmatic airway inflammation microenvironment.

METHOD

In this study, an asthma model was established by intratracheal instillation of Aspergillus fumigatus extract in Ecto-5'-Nucleotidase (CD73) gene-knockout and wild-type mice. Multiple analyses from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were used to determine the levels of cytokines and chemokines. Immunohistochemistry was used to detect subcutaneous fibrosis and inflammatory cell infiltration. Finally, adenosine 5'-(α, β-methylene) diphosphate (APCP), a CD73 inhibitor, was pumped subcutaneously before Aspergillus attack to observe the infiltration of inflammatory cells and subcutaneous fibrosis to clarify its therapeutic effect.

RESULT

PAS staining showed that CD73 knockout inhibited pulmonary epithelial cell proliferation and bronchial fibrosis induced by Aspergillus extract. The genetic knockdownof CD73 significantly reduced the production of Th2 cytokines, interleukin (IL)-4, IL-6, IL-13, chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 5 (CCL5), eosinophil chemokine, neutrophil IL-17, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). In addition, exogenous adenosine supplementation increased airway inflammation. Finally, the CD73 inhibitor APCP was administered to reduce inflammation and subcutaneous fibrosis.

CONCLUSION

Elevated adenosine metabolism plays an inflammatory role in asthma, and CD73 could be a potential therapeutic target for asthma.

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.

Serum hydrogen sulphide levels in acute asthmatic children: a case control study

Background

It’s thought that respiratory epithelium-produced reduced hydrogen sulphide (H2S) plays a role in the pathophysiology of acute asthma. In this case–control research, blood H2S levels were examined between matched acutely asthmatic children and non-asthmatic controls. The grade of acute asthma, vital signs and absolute eosinophilic count in the asthmatic children were likewise associated with the blood H2S level.

Methods

Forty Egyptian asthmatic children had visited the emergency room and forty age- and sex-matched non-asthmatic controls had their blood H2S levels measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

The serum H2S in the two groups did not differ statistically significantly. Serum H2S and respiratory rate showed a moderately significant inverse connection (r = -0.325, p = 0.041). However, serum H2S and other clinical or laboratory variables exhibited no meaningful relationships. Patients' absolute and percentage eosinophil counts were considerably higher than healthy controls. Serum H2S exhibited a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 32.5% for identifying children with acute asthma from non-asthmatic children.

Conclusion

Children with asthma and those without asthma had similar serum H2S levels. It has a lousy relationship with respiratory rate. It is indicated that it is an inadequate screening and diagnostic tool since it has low sensitivity (50%) and specificity (32.5%) in differentiating acute asthmatic children.

WITHDRAWN: Prospective direct comparison of biological treatments on severe eosinophilic asthma: Findings from the PRISM study

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Targeting the RhoA-GEF-H1 pathway of mast cells attenuates experimental airway allergy

Mast cells are the major effector cells in allergic diseases. RhoA and its downstream pathway is associated with the pathogenesis of airway allergy. The objective of this study is to test a hypothesis that modulating the RhoA-GEF-H1 axis in mast cells can attenuate airway allergy. An airway allergic disorder (AAD) mouse model was employed. Mast cells were isolated from AAD mouse airway tissues to be analyzed by RNA sequencing. We observed that mast cells isolated from the respiratory tract of AAD mice were resistant to apoptosis. Mast cell mediator levels in nasal lavage fluid were correlated with apoptosis resistance in AAD mice. Activation of RhoA in AAD mast cells was related to resistance to apoptosis. Mast cells isolated from the airway tissues in AAD mouse exhibited strong RhoA-GEF-H1 expression. The RhoA-GEF-H1 axis was associated with the lower FasL expression in AAD mast cells. Activation of the RhoA-GEF-H1 axis promoted the production of mediators in mast cells. Inhibition of GEF-H1 facilitated the SIT-induced mast cell apoptosis and enhanced the therapeutic efficacy of AAD. In conclusion, RhoA-GEF-H1 activities are associated with resistance to apoptosis in mast cells isolated from sites of allergic lesions. The state of apoptosis resistance in mast cells is associated with the state of AAD disease. Inhibition of GEF-H1 restores the sensitivity of mast cells to apoptosis inducers, and alleviates experimental AAD in mice.

Comparative efficacy of tezepelumab to mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV1 compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV1 by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV1 by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.

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

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

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.

Monoclonal antibodies in the management of asthma: Dead ends, current status and future perspectives

Patients with moderate-to-severe asthma may now be treated using a variety of monoclonal antibodies that target key inflammatory cytokines involved in disease pathogenesis. Existing clinical data on anti-IgE, anti-IL-5 and other immunological pathways indicate these therapies to offer reduced exacerbation rates, improved lung function, greater asthma control and better quality of life. However, as several patients still do not achieve satisfactory clinical response with the antibodies available, many more biologics, aiming different immunological pathways, are under evaluation. This review summarizes recent data on existing and potential monoclonal antibodies in asthma. Recent advances have resulted in the registration of a new antibody targeting TSLP (tezepelumab), with others being under development. Some of the researched monoclonal antibodies (e.g. anti-IL-13 tralokinumab and lebrikizumab or anti-IL-17A secukinumab) have shown optimistic results in preliminary research; however, these have been discontinued in asthma clinical research. In addition, as available monoclonal antibody treatments have shown little benefit among patients with T₂-low asthma, research continues in this area, with several antibodies in development. This article summarizes the available pre-clinical and clinical data on new and emerging drugs for treating severe asthma, discusses discontinued treatments and outlines future directions in this area.

Uncontrolled severe T2 asthma: Which biological to choose? A biomarker-based approach

In recent years, advances in knowledge of molecular mechanisms involved in asthma have changed uncontrolled severe asthma (USA) treatment, with the appearance of biological treatment. USA is a heterogeneous entity with different endotypes and phenotypes. Nowadays, the biological drugs approved with asthma indication are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. Tezepelumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and, recently, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All these biological drugs have shown their efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing exacerbations, improving asthma control, quality of life, pulmonary function, and withdrawing systemic corticosteroids or at least reducing their daily dose, with some differences between them. Except for mepolizumab and reslizumab, biological drugs have different targets and thus different therapeutic indications should be expected; however, in some patients, more than one drug could be indicated, making the election more difficult. Because there are no direct comparisons between biological drugs, some biomarkers are used to choose between them, but they are not unbeatable. In this article, an algorithm to choose the first biological drug in a specific patient is proposed based on different study results and patient' characteristics.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).

CONCLUSION

There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

Biologics for chronic severe asthma: a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To evaluate the benefits and harms of biological agents targeting type‐2 inflammation (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab, tezepelumab) in people with severe asthma, with a network meta‐analysis and to rank agents by effectiveness.

Extension of mepolizumab injection intervals as potential of saving costs in well controlled patients with severe eosinophilic asthma

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Enigma variations: The multi-faceted problems of pre-school wheeze

Numerous publications on wheezing disorders in children younger than 6 years have appeared in the medical literature over the last decades with the aim of shedding light on the mechanistic pathways (endotypes) and treatment. Nevertheless, there is yet no consensus as to the appropriate way to manage preschool wheeze mainly because of the lack of a clear definition of "preschool asthma" and the paucity of scientific evidence concerning its underlying endotypes. A symptom-based approach is inadequate since the human airway can respond to external stimuli with a limited range of symptoms and signs, including cough and wheeze, and these manifestations represent the final expression of many clinical entities with potentially different pathophysiologies requiring different individualized treatments. Hence, new studies challenge the symptom-based approach and promote the importance of managing the wheezy child based on the "airway phenotype." This will enable the clinician to identify not only the child with a serious underlying pathology (e.g., a structural airway disorder or immunodeficiency) who is in need of prompt and specific treatment but also increase the specificity of treatment for the child with symptoms suggestive of an "asthma" syndrome. In the latter case, focus should be given to the identification of treatable traits. This review summarizes the current understanding in management of preschool wheezing and highlights the unmet need for further research.

Clinical implications of asthma endotypes and phenotypes

Background: Asthma is a complex disorder with variable clinical expression. Recognizable clinical and laboratory features define phenotypes, and specific biologic pathways define endotypes. Identifying the specific pathway responsible for persistent asthma would enable the clinician to select the optimal inhibitors, which currently are biologic therapies. Objective: To provide an up-to-date review of the current clinical status of endotype and phenotype characterizations of asthma and discuss these categories in relation to the available, or likely available, biologic therapies for asthma. Methods: The medical literature was reviewed based on the search terms: asthma biologics, severe asthma, uncontrolled asthma, corticosteroid-dependent asthma, phenotype, endotype, and type 2. We also used our knowledge of the literature and current research. Results: All of the current biologics, including the recently approved tezepelumab, were most effective with increased type 2 biomarkers, which identify exacerbation-prone asthma. Current biomarkers do not permit consistent identification of specific endotypes to facilitate informed selection of the optimal therapy for an individual patient. Thus, empiricism and the art of care continue to play major roles in treatment selection. Conclusion: Current biologic therapies for asthma and those likely to be U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved within the near future work best in subjects with strong type 2 signatures. Available biomarkers and observable characteristics do not enable clinicians to recognize specific endotypes, but rather subphenotypes or overlapping endotypes. The goal of identifying the optimal patient for a specific therapy remains elusive, but worthy of pursuit. In the interim, the availability of an increasing number of treatment options allows the clinician to help most of his or her patients.

Current and emerging biologic therapies targeting eosinophilic disorders

Eosinophilic disorders include a wide array of conditions in which eosinophils play a primary pathophysiologic role. While historically treated with corticosteroids and immunosuppressants, knowledge of eosinophil biology has led to the development of several biologics targeting eosinophils. In this review, we discuss the current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eosinophil-specific biologics targeting IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab) and IL-5R (benralizumab) along with biologics under investigation targeting siglec-8 (lirentelimab). We discuss efficacy and safety data from trials of these medications in conditions including eosinophilic asthma, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID). Additionally, we discuss case reports utilizing these medications in conditions including drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), and eosinophilic pneumonia, among others. While eosinophilic targeting biologic therapy has been successful in eosinophilic asthma, HES, EGPA, and CRSwNP leading to FDA approval for these conditions, trials treating EoE and EGID have been disappointing to date. Given the increasing number of trials utilizing these biologics, it will be imperative for the allergist-immunologist to stay up to date on the latest treatment options to provide the most optimal care for eosinophilic disorders.

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.

Effectiveness of Switching to Benralizumab in Severe Refractory Eosinophilic Asthma

Purpose

Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the α subunit of the IL-5 receptor. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of this agent with respect to lung function and symptom control in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of benralizumab after switching previous treatment with other monoclonal antibodies.

Patients and Methods

We performed a multicenter retrospective study under conditions of daily clinical practice. The study population comprised consecutively included patients with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma whose initial treatment with omalizumab or mepolizumab was switched to benralizumab. Patients were evaluated at 4 and 12 months after starting treatment with benralizumab. We analyzed asthma control, number of severe exacerbations, corticosteroid cycles, visits to the emergency department, and hospital admissions, as well as lung function. Similarly, we evaluated the response to treatment according to previously established criteria.

Results

We evaluated 40 patients who switched from omalizumab (n=16) or mepolizumab (n=24) to benralizumab. The reasons for switching were lack of response in 30 cases, adverse effects in 9, and patient request in 1. Switching was followed by a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations, visits to the emergency department, and corticosteroid cycles, as well as improved ACT both at 4 and 12 months. However, no significant improvement in lung function was observed. Asthma control (including complete response and control) was achieved in 55% of patients (n=22) at 12 months. Specifically, a complete response was achieved in 30% of patients at 12 months (66.7% switching from omalizumab and 33.3% from mepolizumab).

Conclusion

Patients diagnosed with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma who experience a partial response with omalizumab or mepolizumab could benefit from switching to benralizumab. This approach can reduce the number of exacerbations, visits to the emergency department, and corticosteroid cycles and improve control of asthma.

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.

An Overview of Off-Label Use of Humanized Monoclonal Antibodies in Paediatrics

In recent years, off-label and unlicensed drug use has extensively developed in the paediatric population. For a long time, clinical trials in the paediatric population were considered complicated to perform because of ethical problems, causing frequent off-label use. Off-label drug use remains an important public health issue, especially for children with rare conditions or with diseases not responsive to conventional treatments. The present paper is a narrative review of the literature of off-label drug use in children. The aim of our study is to summarize the main works dealing with the off-label use of biological drugs in paediatrics. Further studies analyzing their efficacy, safety, and cost-benefit ratios are needed to extend the use of biological therapies to the paediatric population.

Budget Impact Analysis of Mepolizumab for Eligible Patients in the Setting of a Severe Asthma Clinic Within Dubai Health Authority (DHA)

Purpose

To estimate 5-years budgetary impact of introducing mepolizumab to eligible patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma treated at a tertiary care hospital within Dubai Health Authority (DHA).

Patients and Methods

A budget impact analysis (BIA) model was adapted to the setting of Rashid Hospital, DHA to estimate the budgetary implications of introducing first-in-class anti-IL5 (mepolizumab) as add-on therapy for eligible patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The eligible patient population (n=60) was estimated from aggregate data provided by the clinic. Patients were eligible to treatment with mepolizumab if they had ≥2 exacerbation in the previous year and eosinophil count ≥150 cell/µL. The analysis compared the cost of treating patients in two alternative scenarios; a scenario where patients are treated with optimized usual care or with available biologic as add-on therapy, and a second scenario where mepolizumab is fully accessible to eligible patients.

Results

Administration of mepolizumab to eligible patients at Rashid Hospital is predicted to result in overall savings estimated at £270,545 over a 5-year time horizon. Exacerbation rates could not be indirectly compared for mepolizumab and omalizumab, since treatment continuation rules were defined differently. Therefore, these parameters were directly taken from the clinical trials for mepolizumab and omalizumab. The savings were estimated due to drug acquisition costs (£269,900) and estimated reduction in exacerbation (n=15). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model results was most sensitive to changing the method of calculating omalizumab dose and varying the drug acquisition cost of omalizumab by ±20%.

Conclusion

The BIA showed that full accessibility of mepolizumab to eligible severe asthma patients is predicted to be budget saving in the Dubai Health Authority. This evaluation is relevant to healthcare decision making as it demonstrates that mepolizumab is budget saving for eligible patients, while reducing burden by improving their control and symptoms.

Eosinophil-derived neurotoxin: An asthma exacerbation biomarker in children

Background: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, characterized by chronic airway inflammation. Asthma exacerbations (AE) are episodes characterized by a progressive increase in symptoms of shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, or chest tightness with a decrease in lung function. There have been previous studies that examined the role of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) in asthma, but there have been no studies of the role of EDN in children experiencing AE. Objective: In this study, we aimed to examine the association of EDN with lung function and prognosis in children admitted for severe AE. Methods: We enrolled 82 children who were admitted for severe AE at two different university hospitals in South Korea between January 2018 and December 2019. Blood tests, including white blood cell count, myeloperoxidase (MPO), total eosinophil count, EDN, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and interleukin (IL) 4, IL-5, IL-10 values, and lung function were measured on admission and at discharge in each patient. Results: We observed significant decreases in the levels of MPO, EDN, CRP, and IL-4, with significant improvement in lung function after treatment. We then classified the subjects into two groups of different clinical phenotypes: eosinophilic asthma exacerbation (EAE) group and non-EAE group. EDN levels were higher and lung functions were lower in the EAE group. Also, we found that the EDN level was a significant biomarker useful for predicting the number of days for hospital stay. Conclusion: We found that EDN can act as a biomarker that reflects lung function, and that EDN could act as a prognostic biomarker, which demonstrated the complex role of EDN in children experiencing AE.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tezepelumab and Other Biologics in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma According to Thresholds of Type 2 Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin antibody (tezepelumab) has therapeutical potential for inadequately controlled asthma. However, evidence comparing tezepelumab with other biologics is scarce. To address this issue, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy of five treatments (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, and placebo) in overall participants and in subgroups stratified by the thresholds of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, including peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). The primary endpoints were annualized exacerbation rate (AER) and any adverse events (AAEs). In the ranking assessment using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of AER, tezepelumab ranked the highest overall and across subgroups (based on PBEC and FeNO level thresholds). A significant difference was observed between tezepelumab and dupilumab in the patient subgroup with PBEC < 150, and between tezepelumab and benralizumab in overall participants and the patient subgroup with PBEC ≥ 300 and ≥150, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of AAEs in the overall participants between each pair of five treatment arms. These results provide a basis for the development of treatment strategies for asthma and may guide basic, clinical, or translational research.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Clinical and Lung Function Outcomes After Anti-IgE or Anti-IL5 Therapy in Severe Asthma

Background

Although there have been indirect comparisons of the relative efficacy of mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) and benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα) in severe asthma patients, long-term direct head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Here, we (i) examined the effect of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and omalizumab on symptom control and lung function parameters over time; and (ii) compared the efficacy of mepolizumab and benralizumab on symptom control and lung function outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with severe asthma taking anti-IgE (omalizumab; n = 24), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, n = 23), or anti-IL-Rα (benralizumab; n = 12) therapy. Data were extracted on (i) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) scores; (ii) forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁); and (iii) peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) at 4–6 months and 1 year and documented reductions in exacerbations. Clinical and lung function outcomes were compared between patients taking mepolizumab and benralizumab and over time.

Results

There were significant decreases in ACQ-5 scores (3.3 ± 0.93 to 1.7 ± 0.98 for mepolizumab, 3.5 ± 0.72 to 1.6 ±0.89 for benralizumab, and 3.5 ± 0.95 to 1.7 ± 1.1 for omalizumab; t-test, all p < 0.0001) but not increases in FEV₁ and PEFR for all three agents after 4–6 months of therapy, which persisted but did not decrease further at one year. There were trends toward a greater percentage increase in FEV₁ and PEFR from baseline and a decrease in the number of exacerbations in patients taking benralizumab than those taking mepolizumab.

Conclusion

Although limited by a small sample size, this real-world, head-to-head comparison of mepolizumab and benralizumab is consistent with comparative data on asthma biologicals and indirect comparisons showing no major difference in efficacy. The study also generates new testable hypotheses about the efficacy of asthma biologicals in different patient populations.

Controversies in Allergy: Choosing a Biologic for Patients with Severe Asthma

The availability of a range of new biological treatments targeting type-2 inflammation has provided new opportunities for patients with more severe asthma. Treatment has a bigger effect on exacerbations than day-to-day symptoms, and efficacy increases with increasing intensity of type-2 airway inflammation as reflected by the blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. The similarity of the clinical effects and target populations coupled with the absence of direct head-to-head comparative data makes it difficult to choose the right biologic for a given patient. In this review, we summarize the key efficacy data from phase 3 trials; discuss indirect comparisons; review clinical and laboratory variables that may be associated with a differential response to treatment; outline practical considerations that might be important to individual patients; and suggest an algorithm for choosing the most appropriate biologic to start with and the first choice to switch to.

Tezepelumab compared with other biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.

Synergistic effect of Korean red ginseng extract and GABA mixture on the IgE production in mice via Th1/Th2 cell balance

It has been recently reported that the immune system has been linked to the nervous system. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of administration of two components, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and Panax ginseng Meyer (GIN), on the production of IgE and Th1-Th2 dominant cytokines. Antibody and inflammatory mediator levels in serum, and the cytokines secreted to spleen cells of ovalbumin (OVA) immunized mice were analyzed. The group of GABA and GIN mixture significantly reduced IgE level and dramatically increased OVA-IgG2a antibody production. In addition, rising effect on IFN-gamma and GM-CSF levels related to Th1 cytokine was observed only in the group of GABA + GIN. The mixture alleviated allergic symptoms by reducing the level of histamine and prostaglandin. These studies suggest that GIN + GABA administration in the allergen-induced mouse model may regulate the Th1-Th2 balance by strongly acting on the immune response associated with Th1.

Real-Life Effectiveness of Mepolizumab on Forced Expiratory Flow between 25% and 75% of Forced Vital Capacity in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) is associated with high peripheral blood and airway eosinophilia, recurrent disease exacerbations and severe airflow limitation. Eosinophilic inflammation is also responsible for small airway disease (SAD) development. SEA patients experience poor disease control and response to standard therapy and are prime candidates for anti-IL5 biologicals, such as mepolizumab, but the effect of treatment on SAD is unclear. We investigated the effect of mepolizumab on lung function in SEA patients, focusing on SAD parameters, and searched for an association between patients' phenotypic characteristics and changes in small airways function. In this real-life study, data from 105 patients with SEA were collected at baseline and after 6, 12 and 18 months of mepolizumab treatment. Along with expected improvements in clinical and lung function parameters brought by Mepolizumab treatment, FEF2525-75% values showed a highly significant, gradual and persistent increase (from 32.7 ± 18.2% at baseline to 48.6 ± 18.4% after 18 months) and correlated with ACT scores at 18 months (r = 0.566; p ≤ 0.0001). A patient subgroup analysis showed that changes in FEF25-75% values were higher in patients with a baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count ≥400 cells/μL and oral corticosteroid use. Mepolizumab significantly improves small airway function. This effect correlates with clinical benefits and may represent an accessible parameter through which to evaluate therapeutic response. This study provides novel insights into the phenotypic characteristics associated with the improved functional outcome provided by mepolizumab treatment.