"Real-life" Effectiveness Studies of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Meta-analysis

Navigating biologic therapies in elderly asthma

The prevalence of asthma among the elderly population has witnessed a notable rise, presenting unique challenges in diagnosis and management. Biologic therapies, such as omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, have demonstrated efficacy in targeting specific pathways associated with severe asthma in elderly individuals. However, a significant research gap exists in the application of these therapies in elderly asthma patients. Despite the considerable size of the elderly asthma population and the social and economic burden that this specific demographic imposes on society, the available body of research catering to this group is limited. Notably, no RCTs have been expressly designed for the elderly across all asthma biologic therapies. Moreover, most RCTs have set upper age cutoffs, commonly 75 years old, and exclusion criteria for common comorbidities in the elderly, thus marginalizing this group from pivotal research. This underscores the crucial need for intentional inclusion of elderly participants in separately designed clinical trials and more researches, aiming to augment the generalizability of findings and enhance therapeutic outcomes. Given the distinct physiological changes associated with aging, there may be a concern regarding the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies in the elderly compared to non-elderly adults, posing a barrier to their use in this population. However, observational studies have shown similar benefits of these therapies in elderly individuals as seen in non-elderly adults. Other anticipated challenges related to initiating biologic therapy in elderly people with asthma including dosing consideration and monitoring strategies, which are important areas of investigation for optimizing asthma management will be discussed in this review. In summary, this review navigates the current landscape of biologic therapies for elderly asthma, offering valuable insights for various stakeholders, including researchers, healthcare providers, and policymakers, to advance asthma care in this vulnerable population. We propose that future research should concentrate on tailored, evidence-based approaches to address the undertreatment of elderly asthma patients.

Quality of Life Improvements with Biologic Initiation Among Subspecialist-Treated US Patients with Severe Asthma

Purpose

Patients living with severe asthma (SA) experience multiple health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairments. This study examined HRQoL changes after biologic treatment initiation among a large, real-world cohort of patients with SA.

Patients and methods

CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of subspecialist-treated adults with SA who receive biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Patients enrolled February 2018-February 2023 were asked to complete the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) every 6 months (total score range of 0-100 [0=best possible health], meaningful change threshold is a 4-unit reduction in the total score). Changes in SGRQ responses from 6 months before initiation to 12 to 18 months after initiation were summarized.

Results

A total of 76 patients completed the SGRQ 0 to 6 months before and 12 to 18 months after biologic initiation. The mean (SD) SGRQ total score decreased from 52.2 (20.6) to 41.9 (23.8), with improvement across the symptoms (-14.5), activity (-11.0), and impacts (-8.3) components. For specific impairments reported by ≥50% of patients before biologic initiation, fewer reported each impairment after biologic initiation; the largest reductions were for "Questions about what activities usually make you feel short of breath these days [Walking outside on level ground]" (67% to 43%), "Questions about other effects that your respiratory problems may have on you these days [I feel that I am not in control of my respiratory problems]" (55% to 34%), and "Questions about your cough and shortness of breath these days [My coughing or breathing disturbs my sleep]" (63% to 45%).

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of adults with SA, biologic initiation was associated with meaningful improvements in asthma-related HRQoL. These data provide further insight into the burden SA places on patients and the benefits of biologic treatment.

Personalized Medicine in Severe Asthma: From Biomarkers to Biologics

Severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous clinical condition presented as chronic inflammation of the airways. Conventional treatments are mainly focused on symptom control; however, there has been a shift towards personalized medicine. Identification of different phenotypes driven by complex pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes), especially those driven by type-2 (T2) inflammation, has led to improved treatment outcomes. Combining biomarkers with T2-targeting monoclonal antibodies is crucial for developing personalized treatment strategies. Several biological agents, including anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin/interleukin-4, have been approved for the treatment of severe asthma. These biological therapies have demonstrated efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, lowering eosinophil count, improving lung function, diminishing oral corticosteroid use, and improving the quality of life in selected patients. Severe asthma management is undergoing a profound transformation with the introduction of ongoing and future biological therapies. The availability of novel treatment options has facilitated the adoption of phenotype/endotype-specific approaches and disappearance of generic interventions. The transition towards precision medicine plays a crucial role in meticulously addressing the individual traits of asthma pathobiology. An era of tailored strategies has emerged, allowing for the successful targeting of immune-inflammatory responses that underlie uncontrolled T2-high asthma. These personalized approaches hold great promise for improving the overall efficacy and outcomes in the management of severe asthma. This article comprehensively reviews currently available biological agents and biomarkers for treating severe asthma. With the expanding repertoire of therapeutic options, it is becoming increasingly crucial to comprehend the influencing factors, understand the pathogenesis, and track treatment progress in severe asthma.

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

Advances in pathophysiological understanding and the elucidation of a type 2 inflammatory signature with interleukins 4, 5 and 13 at its center have led to the development of targeted antibody therapies that are now approved for the treatment of severe asthma. In suitable patients, these medications reduce asthma exacerbations and the necessity for oral corticosteroids, improve asthma control, quality of life and lung function. A proportion of patients with severe asthma may even achieve remission under ongoing biologic therapy. Type-2 inflammatory comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe asthma, sharing overlapping pathophysiology and may similarly respond to biologic treatment. Here, we give an overview of the six biologic therapies currently approved for severe asthma and review randomized clinical trials and real-life studies in asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. We also discuss selection of biologics according to licensing criteria, asthma phenotype and biomarkers, monitoring of treatment response and proceedings in case of insufficient outcome under therapy.

[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.

Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review

Background

Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma.

Methods

We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken.

Results

13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards.

Conclusions

This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

Aims. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from 4 major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methods. Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe astma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, and the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L) and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC versus OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.Results. Per-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that base-case results.Conclusion. Whereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard-of-care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

Can we predict who will benefit most from biologics in severe asthma? A post-hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

Individualized prediction of treatment response may improve the value proposition of advanced treatment options in severe asthma. This study aimed to investigate the combined capacity of patient characteristics in predicting treatment response to mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from two multinational phase 3 trials of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma. We fitted penalized regression models to quantify reductions in the rate of severe exacerbations and the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) score. The capacity of 15 covariates towards predicting treatment response was quantified by the Gini index (measuring disparities in treatment benefit) as well as observed treatment benefit within the quintiles of predicted treatment benefit.

RESULTS

There was marked variability in the ability of patient characteristics to predict treatment response; covariates explained greater heterogeneity in predicting treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation frequency (Gini index 0.35 v. 0.24). Key predictors for treatment benefit for severe exacerbations included exacerbation history, blood eosinophil count, baseline ACQ5 score and age, and those for symptom control included blood eosinophil count and presence of nasal polyps. Overall, the average reduction in exacerbations was 0.90/year (95%CI, 0.87‒0.92) and average reduction in ACQ5 score was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.02‒0.35). Among the top 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 2.23/year (95% CI, 2.03‒2.43) and ACQ5 score were reduced by 0.59 (95% CI, 0.19‒0.98). Among the bottom 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 0.25/year (95% CI, 0.16‒0.34) and ACQ5 by -0.20 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.11).

CONCLUSION

A precision medicine approach based on multiple patient characteristics can guide biologic therapy in severe asthma, especially in identifying patients who will not benefit as much from therapy. Patient characteristics had a greater capacity to predict treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691521 (registered September 24, 2012) and NCT01000506 (registered October 23, 2009).

Real-Life Effectiveness of Benralizumab, Mepolizumab and Omalizumab in Severe Allergic Asthma Associated with Nasal Polyps

Biological therapies are available for the treatment of the severe allergic asthma (SAA) with blood eosinophil count ≥ 0.3 × 10⁹/L. Several of them also showed benefits on nasal polyps (NP), one of the most frequent comorbidities of the severe asthma, but comparative studies on their effectiveness in the association SAA-NP are currently lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of benralizumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients with SAA-NP in real-life settings. A retrospective, observational, multicenter real-life study was realized including patients with SAA-NP treated by benralizumab, mepolizumab or omalizumab for 6 months. We analysed the nasal and respiratory symptoms, the number of asthma attacks and salbutamol use/week, acute sinusitis and severe exacerbation rates, the asthma control score, the lung function parameters, the NP endoscopic score, the sinus imaging and the blood eosinophil count 6 months before and after treatment. Seventy-two patients with SAA-NP were included: 16 treated by benralizumab, 21 by mepolizumab and 35 by omalizumab. After 6 months of treatment, almost all studied parameters were improved (except sinus imaging) with a greater effect of omalizumab on the nasal pruritus (p = 0.001) and more benefits of benralizumab on exacerbations rate, asthma attacks per week and lung function (all p < 0.05). Benralizumab and mepolizumab were more effective to improve the NP endoscopic score and the blood eosinophil count (both p < 0.001). All three biological therapies showed effectiveness by improving asthma and nasal outcomes in patients with SAA-NP. Several differences have been found that should be confirmed by larger comparative studies.

Individualised risk prediction model for exacerbations in patients with severe asthma: protocol for a multicentre real-world risk modelling study

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is associated with a disproportionally high disease burden, including the risk of severe exacerbations. Accurate prediction of the risk of severe exacerbations may enable clinicians to tailor treatment plans to an individual patient. This study aims to develop and validate a novel risk prediction model for severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma, and to examine the potential clinical utility of this tool.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The target population is patients aged 18 years or older with severe asthma. Based on the data from the International Severe Asthma Registry (n=8925), a prediction model will be developed using a penalised, zero-inflated count model that predicts the rate or risk of exacerbation in the next 12 months. The risk prediction tool will be externally validated among patients with physician-assessed severe asthma in an international observational cohort, the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (n=1652). Validation will include examining model calibration (ie, the agreement between observed and predicted rates), model discrimination (ie, the extent to which the model can distinguish between high-risk and low-risk individuals) and the clinical utility at a range of risk thresholds.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board of National University of Singapore (NUS-IRB-2021-877), the Anonymised Data Ethics and Protocol Transparency Committee (ADEPT1924) and the University of British Columbia (H22-01737). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies, EU PAS Register (EUPAS46088).

Specific IgE Response and Omalizumab Responsiveness in Severe Allergic Asthma

Objective

Omalizumab has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens and/or severe pollinosis through inhibition of IgE-dependent allergic response. When considering the "one airway, one disease" concept, sensitization to pollen could predict responsiveness to omalizumab. This study aimed to assess whether the pretreatment specific IgE response could be a predictor of responsiveness to omalizumab in severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 41 adult patients with severe allergic asthma sensitized to perennial allergens (27 females; mean age 59 years) who had completed 52-week omalizumab treatment were enrolled. The Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness was performed, and demographic characteristics and the positive ratios of specific IgE responses classified into five subgroups (pollen, dust mite, house dust, mold, and animal dander) were compared between responders and non-responders. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of responsiveness to omalizumab.

Results

Thirty-one patients (76%) were identified as responders. The number of sensitized aeroallergen subgroups and sensitization to pollens were significantly higher in responders than in non-responders (both p<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that sensitization to pollen (OR = 8.41, p = 0.02) was independently associated with the effectiveness of omalizumab.

Conclusion

Pretreatment serum pollen-specific IgE could be a predictor of responsiveness to omalizumab.

Identification of Parameters Representative of Immune Dysfunction in Patients with Severe and Fatal COVID-19 Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abnormal immunological indicators associated with disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 have been reported in several observational studies. However, there are marked heterogeneities in patient characteristics and research methodologies in these studies. We aimed to provide an updated synthesis of the association between immune-related indicators and COVID-19 prognosis. We conducted an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Willey, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and CNKI for studies reporting immunological and/or immune-related parameters, including hematological, inflammatory, coagulation, and biochemical variables, tested on hospital admission of COVID-19 patients with different severities and outcomes. A total of 145 studies were included in the current meta-analysis, with 26 immunological, 11 hematological, 5 inflammatory, 4 coagulation, and 10 biochemical variables reported. Of them, levels of cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-1Ra, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, IFN-γ, IgA, IgG, and CD4⁺ T/CD8⁺ T cell ratio, WBC, neutrophil, platelet, ESR, CRP, ferritin, SAA, D-dimer, FIB, and LDH were significantly increased in severely ill patients or non-survivors. Moreover, non-severely ill patients or survivors presented significantly higher counts of lymphocytes, monocytes, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio, eosinophils, CD3⁺ T,CD4⁺T and CD8⁺T cells, B cells, and NK cells. The currently updated meta-analysis primarily identified a hypercytokinemia profile with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 containing IL-1β, IL-1Ra, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, and IFN-γ. Impaired innate and adaptive immune responses, reflected by decreased eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, B cells, NK cells, T cells, and their subtype CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells, and augmented inflammation, coagulation dysfunction, and nonpulmonary organ injury, were marked features of patients with poor prognosis. Therefore, parameters of immune response dysfunction combined with inflammatory, coagulated, or nonpulmonary organ injury indicators may be more sensitive to predict severe patients and those non-survivors.

Basophils from allergy to cancer

Human basophils, first identified over 140 years ago, account for just 0.5-1% of circulating leukocytes. While this scarcity long hampered basophil studies, innovations during the past 30 years, beginning with their isolation and more recently in the development of mouse models, have markedly advanced our understanding of these cells. Although dissimilarities between human and mouse basophils persist, the overall findings highlight the growing importance of these cells in health and disease. Indeed, studies continue to support basophils as key participants in IgE-mediated reactions, where they infiltrate inflammatory lesions, release pro-inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotriene C₄: LTC₄) and regulatory cytokines (IL-4, IL-13) central to the pathogenesis of allergic diseases. Studies now report basophils infiltrating various human cancers where they play diverse roles, either promoting or hampering tumorigenesis. Likewise, this activity bears remarkable similarity to the mounting evidence that basophils facilitate wound healing. In fact, both activities appear linked to the capacity of basophils to secrete IL-4/IL-13, with these cytokines polarizing macrophages toward the M2 phenotype. Basophils also secrete several angiogenic factors (vascular endothelial growth factor: VEGF-A, amphiregulin) consistent with these activities. In this review, we feature these newfound properties with the goal of unraveling the increasing importance of basophils in these diverse pathobiological processes.

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.

Biologics and airway remodeling in severe asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease resulting in airflow obstruction, which in part can become irreversible to conventional therapies, defining the concept of airway remodeling. The introduction of biologics in severe asthma has led in some patients to the complete normalization of previously considered irreversible airflow obstruction. This highlights the need to distinguish a "fixed" airflow obstruction due to structural changes unresponsive to current therapies, from a "reversible" one as demonstrated by lung function normalization during biological therapies not previously obtained even with high-dose systemic glucocorticoids. The mechanisms by which exposure to environmental factors initiates the inflammatory responses that trigger airway remodeling are still incompletely understood. Alarmins represent epithelial-derived cytokines that initiate immunologic events leading to inflammatory airway remodeling. Biological therapies can improve airflow obstruction by addressing these airway inflammatory changes. In addition, biologics might prevent and possibly even revert "fixed" remodeling due to structural changes. Hence, it appears clinically important to separate the therapeutic effects (early and late) of biologics as a new paradigm to evaluate the effects of these drugs and future treatments on airway remodeling in severe asthma.

Human Lung Mast Cells: Therapeutic Implications in Asthma

Mast cells are strategically located in different compartments of the lung in asthmatic patients. These cells are widely recognized as central effectors and immunomodulators in different asthma phenotypes. Mast cell mediators activate a wide spectrum of cells of the innate and adaptive immune system during airway inflammation. Moreover, these cells modulate the activities of several structural cells (i.e., fibroblasts, airway smooth muscle cells, bronchial epithelial and goblet cells, and endothelial cells) in the human lung. These findings indicate that lung mast cells and their mediators significantly contribute to the immune induction of airway remodeling in severe asthma. Therapies targeting mast cell mediators and/or their receptors, including monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, IL-4/IL-13, IL-5/IL-5Rα, IL-4Rα, TSLP, and IL-33, have been found safe and effective in the treatment of different phenotypes of asthma. Moreover, agonists of inhibitory receptors expressed by human mast cells (Siglec-8, Siglec-6) are under investigation for asthma treatment. Increasing evidence suggests that different approaches to depleting mast cells show promising results in severe asthma treatment. Novel treatments targeting mast cells can presumably change the course of the disease and induce drug-free remission in bronchial asthma. Here, we provide an overview of current and promising treatments for asthma that directly or indirectly target lung mast cells.

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.

A pragmatic guide to choosing biologic therapies in severe asthma

There are now several monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies (“biologics”) available to treat severe asthma. Omalizumab is an anti-IgE mAb and is licensed in severe allergic asthma. Current evidence suggests it may decrease exacerbations by augmenting deficient antiviral immune responses in asthma. Like all other biologics, clinical efficacy is greatest in those with elevated T2 biomarkers. Three biologics target the interleukin (IL)-5–eosinophil pathway, including mepolizumab and reslizumab that target IL-5 itself, and benralizumab that targets the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R-α). These drugs all reduce the exacerbation rate in those with raised blood eosinophil counts. Mepolizumab and benralizumab have also demonstrated steroid-sparing efficacy. Reslizumab is the only biologic that is given intravenously rather than by the subcutaneous route. Dupilumab targets the IL-4 receptor and like mepolizumab and benralizumab is effective at reducing exacerbation rate as well as oral corticosteroid requirements. It is also effective for the treatment of nasal polyposis and atopic dermatitis. Tezepelumab is an anti-TSLP (thymic stromal lymphopoietin) mAb that has recently completed phase 3 trials demonstrating significant reductions in exacerbation rate even at lower T2 biomarker thresholds.

Many patients with severe asthma qualify for more than one biologic. To date, there are no head-to-head trials to aid physicians in this choice. However, post-hoc analyses have identified certain clinical characteristics that are associated with superior responses to some therapies. The presence of allergic and/or eosinophilic comorbidities, such as atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, that may additionally benefit by the choice of biologic should also be taken into consideration, as should patient preferences which may include dosing frequency. To date, all biologics have been shown to have excellent safety profiles.

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

The present prevailing inflammatory paradigm in asthma is of T2-high inflammation orchestrated by key inflammatory cells like Type 2 helper lymphocytes, innate lymphoid cells group 2 and associated cytokines. Eosinophils are key components of this T2 inflammatory pathway and have become key therapeutic targets. Real-world evidence on the predominant T2-high nature of severe asthma is emerging. Various inflammatory biomarkers have been adopted in clinical practice to aid asthma characterization including airway measures such as bronchoscopic biopsy and lavage, induced sputum analysis, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Blood measures like eosinophil counts have also gained widespread usage and multicomponent algorithms combining different parameters are now appearing. There is also growing interest in potential future biomarkers including exhaled volatile organic compounds, micro RNAs and urinary biomarkers. Additionally, there is a growing realisation that asthma is a heterogeneous state with numerous phenotypes and associated treatable traits. These may show particular inflammatory patterns and merit-specific management approaches that could improve asthma patient outcomes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma management but their use earlier in the course of disease is being advocated. Recent evidence suggests potential roles for ICS in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) for as needed use in mild asthma whilst maintenance and reliever therapy regimes have gained widespread acceptance. Other anti-inflammatory strategies including ultra-fine particle ICS, leukotriene receptor antagonists and macrolide antibiotics may show efficacy in particular phenotypes too. Monoclonal antibody biologic therapies have recently entered clinical practice with significant impacts on asthma outcomes. Understanding of the efficacy and use of those agents is becoming clearer with a growing body of real-world evidence as is their potential applicability to other treatable comorbid traits. In conclusion, the evolving understanding of T2 driven inflammation alongside a treatable traits disease model is enhancing therapeutic approaches to address inflammation in asthma.

Asthma biologics: Real-world effectiveness, impact of switching biologics, and predictors of response

BACKGROUND

Confirmation of effectiveness of asthma biologics in the real world is desirable because patient characteristics and experiences may differ from those included in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate real-world effectiveness of asthma biologics and identify predictors of response.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in patients with severe asthma receiving biologics. The primary outcome was change in clinically significant exacerbations at 12 months after starting biologic therapy, compared with 12 months before. Secondary outcomes were change in severe exacerbations, maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and asthma control test scores. Subgroup analyses were performed for subjects who were biologic naive or not. A stepwise logistic regression model was performed to compare responders to nonresponders.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients were included. Biologic therapy was associated with a 59% reduction in clinically significant exacerbations (P < .001), 65% reduction in severe exacerbations (P < .001), and 54% reduction in maintenance OCS dose (P = .001) in the 12 months after starting therapy. Biologics also resulted in improvement in prebronchodilator FEV1 (P = .002) and Asthma Control Test score (P < .001). Subjects who were previously on another biologic also experienced significant improvements in exacerbation frequency, maintenance OCS dose, and asthma control. Responders were more likely to be nonsmokers and have higher baseline FEV1, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and eosinophil counts greater than 500 cells/μL.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, biologic therapy in asthma is effective in improving exacerbations, asthma control, and lung function. Patients who have a suboptimal response to 1 biologic can still benefit from treatment with a different biologic.

Biological therapy for severe asthma

Around 5–10% of the total asthmatic population suffer from severe or uncontrolled asthma, which is associated with increased mortality and hospitalization, increased health care burden and worse quality of life. In the last few years, new drugs have been launched and several asthma phenotypes according to definite biomarkers have been identified. In particular, therapy with biologics has revolutionized the management and the treatment of severe asthma, showing high therapeutic efficacy associated with significant clinical benefits. To date, four types of biologics are licensed for severe asthma, i.e. omalizumab (anti-immunoglobulin E) antibody, mepolizumab and reslizumab (anti-interleukin [IL]-5antibody), benralizumab (anti-IL-5 receptor a antibody) and dupilumab (anti-IL-4 receptor alpha antibody). The aim of this article was to review the biologic therapies currently available for the treatment of severe asthma, in order to help physicians to choose the most suitable biologic agent for their asthmatic patients.

Acceptance and Results of Therapy with Omalizumab in Real world Kerala setting - Reports from the ARTWORK study, Kerala, South India

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of effective medications, only a minority of asthma patients achieve guideline defined asthma control. Treatment success depends on patient concurrence to the prescribed drug and adherence to treatment. It is therefore crucial to identify the patient preferences as well as attitudes towards asthma medications. Omalizumab is recommended as a preferred option in step five of asthma therapy. There have been few studies to address patient perspectives on omalizumab therapy in India.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Patients with inadequate asthma control were considered for the study. Systematic evaluation was done to identify and correct modifiable factors that can worsen asthma control. Patients with persisting poor asthma control who were deemed suitable to receive this agent were evaluated with their attitudes towards acceptance or refusal and the reasons for opting out were noted. The patients who received omalizumab were followed up to determine the results of treatment and duration of adherence to therapy.

RESULTS

35 patients out of 51 patients chose to avoid this drug. The reasons for opting out included erroneous perception of optimal asthma control, cost of therapy, and concern about adverse effects. Patients took omalizumab for a median duration of 6 months. Improved asthma control and decreased frequency of exacerbation was noted in all patients which persisted during the six month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of patients needing step five therapy opt out of omalizumab. Cost of drug, duration of therapy and erroneous perception of good asthma control account for refusing treatment. Omalizumab affords excellent clinical benefits to patients who receive it, and the benefits extend beyond the duration of therapy.

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.

Biologicals for severe asthma: what we can learn from real-life experiences?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma is a serious disease affecting about 5-10% of asthmatic patients. Often patients with this kind of asthma requires periodical courses or daily intake of oral corticosteroids, to control symptoms. In the last few years several biological drugs have been developed with the aim to decrease exacerbations and reduce or suspend intake of systemic steroids in severe asthmatic patients. Clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy and the safety of biological antibodies in asthma, but it is already known that randomized controlled trials alone are not sufficient to provide complete information on a drug.

RECENT FINDINGS

After marketing of monoclonal antibodies has been developed several real-life studies with the aim to observe how drugs, tested only on trial patients, are able to provide adequate effectiveness even on 'real' patients; indeed, it is well known that the latter differ in some characteristics from the patients of the trials.

SUMMARY

The results of this analysis confirm the good efficacy of the biologics similarly in real-life patients, also ensuring a promising safety even in periods of observation longer than those of the randomized controlled trials.

Real-World Effectiveness of Mepolizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5 (IL-5) used to treat severe eosinophilic asthma. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mepolizumab in the real world. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in the context of heterogeneity among patients, clinicians, and treatment regimens to study the effectiveness of mepolizumab in the real world.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for real-world studies on severe asthma treatment with mepolizumab as of June 30, 2020. Exacerbations, asthma-related hospitalizations, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) or Asthma Control Test (ACT), corticosteroid use, peripheral blood eosinophil counts, and the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide were selected as indicators to evaluate the effectiveness. Standardized mean differences by the Cohen method and mean differences were chosen as indicators of effect size. Cohen d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered as small, medium, and large effects, respectively. We used the Dersimonian-Laird random-effect model to quantify pooled effectiveness estimates.

FINDINGS

A total of 1457 patients from 13 studies were included in this review. At all time points, mepolizumab was associated with reductions in exacerbations (2.92 and 2.73 events per patient per year fewer at 6 and 12 months, respectively) and hospitalizations (0.36 events per patient per year fewer at 12 months); improvements in asthma control (ACQ scores reductions of 1.32 and 1.03 at 6 and 12 months, respectively; ACT scores increase of 6.52 at 6-12 months); slight improvements in pulmonary function (FEV₁ increase of 0.23 L at 1-3 months and 6-12 months, respectively); reductions in oral corticosteroid use (9.02- and 7.68-mg decrease at 6 and 12 months, respectively); and reductions in peripheral blood eosinophil counts (decreases of 559.11 cells/μL and 599.17 cells/μL at 1-3 months and 6-12 months, respectively) and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (13-ppb reduction at 6-12 months).

IMPLICATIONS

Our study suggests that mepolizumab is associated with improvements in several clinically meaningful real-world outcomes. This study is a supplement to and extension of the efficacy of randomized controlled trials of mepolizumab. (Clin Ther. 2021;XX:XXX-XXX) © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma: A real-life study

Background: The efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma have been established in both randomized controlled trials and real-life studies. Objective: To evaluate the sustained effectiveness and safety of long-term treatment with omalizumab in a real-world setting. Methods: In this retrospective study, we included patients treated with omalizumab for at least 8 years in four asthma clinics in Greece. Pulmonary function, asthma control, oral corticosteroids (OCS) dose, and exacerbations were recorded before treatment, 6 months later, and annually thereafter. Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Forty-five patients (66.7% women), mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 55.3 ± 12.2 years, were included. The duration of treatment with omalizumab was 10.6 ± 1.2 years. The annual exacerbation rate decreased from 4.1 before omalizumab initiation to 1.1 after 1 year of treatment and remained low up to the 8th year of treatment (p < 0.001). From the 19 patients who were receiving OCS at baseline, 21.1% patients discontinued after 6 months, 47.4% were still on OCS after 4 years of therapy, and 31.6% were on OCS after 8 years. With regard to the OCS dose, 36.8% of the patients reduced the dose ≥ 50% after 6 months and 68.4% achieved 50% reduction after 2 years. The mean daily OCS dose before omalizumab initiation was 7.8 mg of prednisolone or the equivalent, reduced to 4.7 mg/day after 6 months, which reached 1.6 mg/day after 8 years (p < 0.001). Treatment with omalizumab resulted in significant improvements of asthma control and lung function. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In this real-life study, omalizumab resulted in significant and sustained improvements in asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and lung function, and had a steroid sparing effect and a good safety profile.

Clinical effects and immune modulation of biologics in asthma

Asthma is considered a syndrome composed of heterogeneous disorders involving complex chronic airway inflammation. Patients with severe asthma, prolonged symptoms, and frequent asthma exacerbations, despite high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, may benefit from treatment with biologics. Four types of biologics are available for severe asthma, including an anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody (omalizumab), anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody (mepolizumab and reslizumab), anti-IL-5 receptor α antibody (benralizumab), and anti-IL-4 receptor α antibody (dupilumab). Biologics for patients with severe asthma demonstrate high therapeutic efficacy and provide significant clinical benefits, including the prevention of asthma exacerbations, alleviation of symptoms, improvement in the quality of life and respiratory function, and reduction in frequencies of hospitalization and emergency outpatient visits. This review provides an overview of the modulation of immunological features by each of the four established biologics in patients with severe allergic asthma. Given the extensive immunomodulatory effects of biologics, further analyses of their precise effects on the human immune system are warranted.

Real-World Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Severe Allergic Asthma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Assessment of clinical outcomes in the real-world corroborates findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated real-world data of omalizumab on treatment response, lung function, exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health care resource utilization (HCRU), and school/work absenteeism at 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment.

METHODS

Observational studies in patients with severe allergic asthma (≥6 years) treated with omalizumab for ≥16 weeks, published from January 2005 to October 2018, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. A random-effects model was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 86 publications were included. Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE) was good/excellent in 77% patients at 16 weeks (risk difference: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.84; I² = 96%) and in 82% patients at 12 months (0.82, 0.73-0.91; 97%). The mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 160, 220, and 250 mL at 16 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. There was a decrease in Asthma Control Questionnaire score at 16 weeks (-1.14), 6 months (-1.56), and 12 months (-1.13) after omalizumab therapy. Omalizumab significantly reduced annualized rate of severe exacerbations (risk ratio [RR]: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56; I² = 96%), proportion of patients receiving OCS (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75; I² = 96%), and number of unscheduled physician visits (mean difference: -2.34, 95% CI: -3.54 to -1.13; I² = 98%) at 12 months versus baseline.

CONCLUSION

The consistent improvements in GETE, lung function, and PROs, and reductions in asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HCRU with add-on omalizumab in real-life confirm and complement the efficacy data of RCTs.

No difference in omalizumab efficacy in patients with asthma by number of asthma-related and allergic comorbidities

BACKGROUND

Comorbidities are common in asthma and may complicate treatment response.

OBJECTIVE

To examine response to omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma by asthma-related and allergic comorbidities.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 years or more from placebo-controlled 008/009 (n = 1071), EXTRA (n = 848), and INNOVATE (n = 419), and single-armed PROSPERO (n = 801) omalizumab studies were included. Poisson regression/analysis of covariance models were used to estimate adjusted exacerbation rates and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) change from baseline after omalizumab initiation for subgroups by number of comorbidities (0, 1 [008/009]; 0, 1, ≥2 [EXTRA and INNOVATE]; 0, 1, 2, ≥3 [PROSPERO]). Self-reported comorbidities included allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, recurrent acute sinusitis, nasal polyps, atopic and contact dermatitis, urticaria, food allergy, anaphylaxis, other allergies, gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

RESULTS

In the EXTRA and INNOVATE studies, no consistent pattern was observed for placebo-corrected relative rate reduction in normalized asthma exacerbations among omalizumab-treated comorbidity subgroups. In PROSPERO, on-study exacerbation rates in the comorbidity subgroups were similar (0, 0.68; 1, 0.70; 2, 0.77; ≥3, 0.80). FEV1 improvements were observed throughout the study for omalizumab vs placebo for all comorbidity subgroups. There were no consistent differences in FEV1 improvements among comorbidity subgroups in 008/009, EXTRA, or INNOVATE. Similarly, no among-group differences were observed for FEV1 change from baseline at month 12 in PROSPERO (0, 0.05 L; 1, 0.08 L; 2, 0.00 L; ≥3, 0.04 L). The 95% confidence intervals overlapped substantially in all instances.

CONCLUSION

In these analyses of placebo-controlled/single-armed studies, on-study exacerbation rates and FEV1 improvements with omalizumab treatment were similar irrespective of comorbidity burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers are as follows: EXTRA, NCT00314574 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00314574); INNOVATE, NCT00046748 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00046748); and PROSPERO, NCT01922037 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01922037).

Immunologic Pathophysiology and Airway Remodeling Mechanism in Severe Asthma: Focused on IgE-Mediated Pathways

Despite the expansion of the understanding in asthma pathophysiology and the continual advances in disease management, a small subgroup of patients remains partially controlled or refractory to standard treatments. Upon the identification of immunoglobulin E (IgE) and other inflammatory mediators, investigations and developments of targeted agents have thrived. Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically targets the circulating IgE, which in turn impedes and reduces subsequent releases of the proinflammatory mediators. In the past decade, omalizumab has been proven to be efficacious and well-tolerated in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma in both trials and real-life studies, most notably in reducing exacerbation rates and corticosteroid use. While growing evidence has demonstrated that omalizumab may be potentially beneficial in treating other allergic diseases, its indication remains confined to treating severe allergic asthma and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Future efforts may be bestowed on determining the optimal length of omalizumab treatment, seeking biomarkers that could better predict treatment response and as well as extending its indications.

'Real-world' effectiveness of omalizumab in adults with severe allergic asthma: a meta-analysis

Background: Severe asthma affects 5-10% of the 350 million people with asthma worldwide. Findings from the authors' previous meta-analysis supported omalizumab use as an adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma. The publication of fourteen new articles necessitates an update of the meta-analysis.Objective: To evaluate the 'real-world' effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of acute allergic asthma in adults by calculating pooled effects estimates from data in published articles.Methods: Articles on omalizumab effectiveness in 'real-world' settings were identified. Effect sizes, including point estimates of the proportion of patients who met a given criteria, mean improvements relative to baseline, and change in the proportion of patients requiring oral corticosteroids compared to baseline were extracted. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to pool effect sizes based on proportions. Standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) were calculated from means and standard deviations. Relative risk was calculated from changes in proportions. Variability within and between studies was evaluated.Results: Omalizumab increases the percentage of individuals rated 'good' or 'excellent' on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness Scale. Omalizumab also improves respiratory function, quality-of-life, and asthma control while reducing medication usage, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and adverse events.Conclusion: 'Real-world' evidence continues to support the use of omalizumab as adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma.

Clinical Determinants of Successful Omalizumab Therapy in Severe Allergic Asthma Patients: 4-Year-Long, Real-Life Observation

Introduction

Omalizumab is a high-cost therapy recommended for the treatment of severe allergic asthma.

Objective

To find clinical parameters that are related to the sustained response to omalizumab.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective, real-life, 4-year follow-up was provided in Poland between March 2013 and May 2019. The success of omalizumab was assessed based on composed subjective and objective criteria. Simple/multiple regression analyses were performed to search for predictors of the response to omalizumab.

Results

A total of 989 severe allergic asthma patients were referred for omalizumab therapy, of whom 854 patients were considered eligible for treatment. At weeks 16 and 52, omalizumab was successful in 84% and 91% of patients, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was maintained up to the 4-year follow-up. Four predictors of the response to omalizumab were found at week 16 and two at week 52. The results at week 16 may be used as predictors of success at week 52 based on the model including baseline FEV1% and change in ACQ-7 and miniAQLQ score at week 16: the area under the ROC curve equals 0.746 [95% CI: 0.672–0.820].

Conclusion

Omalizumab therapy is very effective, with this efficacy sustained after 4 years of treatment. Success of the therapy can be predicted from the baseline FEV1% and clinical improvement (based on ACQ-7 and miniAQLQ scores) at week 16.

Prospects for severe asthma treatment

Biological drugs are approved to treat patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and are directed against mediators of type 2 immunity. These agents are effective in reducing the risk of exacerbation, maintaining asthma symptom control and reducing the need of systemic corticosteroids. Although biological drugs have revolutionized the management of the disease, to date there are no head-to-head studies across the current available molecules and there remains the need of specific biomarkers for the diagnosis, prognosis and response to treatment. Moreover, there is still an urgent need to identify further molecular targets to offer effective treatments for those patients who are not responsive to the currently available biological drugs, by moving upstream in the inflammatory cascade to inhibit multiple inflammatory pathways and/or identify effective nontype 2 immunity mechanisms.

Past, present, and future of anti-IgE biologics

About 20 years after the identification of immunoglobulin E (IgE) and its key role in allergic hypersensitivity reactions against normally harmless substances, scientists have started inventing strategies to block its pathophysiological activity in 1986. The initial concept of specific IgE targeting through the use of anti-IgE antibodies has gained a lot of momentum and within a few years independent research groups have reported successful generation of first murine monoclonal anti-IgE antibodies. Subsequent generation of optimized chimeric and humanized versions of these antibodies has paved the way for the development of therapeutic anti-IgE biologicals as we know them today. With omalizumab, there is currently still only one therapeutic anti-IgE antibody approved for the treatment of allergic conditions. Since its application is limited to the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria, major efforts have been undertaken to develop alternative anti-IgE biologicals that could potentially be used in a broader spectrum of allergic diseases. Several new drug candidates have been generated and are currently assessed in pre-clinical studies or clinical trials. In this review, we highlight the molecular properties of past and present anti-IgE biologicals and suggest concepts that might improve treatment efficacy of future drug candidates.

Biologics for the Treatments of Allergic Conditions: Severe Asthma

By selectively targeting specific steps of the immune inflammation cascade, biologic drugs for severe asthma have substantially contributed to increase the standard of care, to reduce drug-related morbidity. and most importantly to ameliorate patients' quality of life. Upcoming molecules are going to provide a chance for severe phenotypes besides Th2 high through the interaction with epithelial and innate immunity. Some practical aspects including optimal treatment duration, the possibility of a dose treatment modulation, the place and relevance of ICS in best responders are still under debate. Long-term safety, especially when interacting with innate immunity needs to be further investigated.

Biologics for Severe Asthma: Treatment-Specific Effects Are Important in Choosing a Specific Agent

Patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma have greater morbidity, greater use of health care resources, and more impairment in health-related quality of life when compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Fortunately, since the introduction of biological therapeutics, patients with severe eosinophilic asthma now have beneficial treatment options that they did not have just a few years ago. In addition to anti-IgE therapy for allergic asthma, 3 new biological therapeutics targeting IL-5 and 1 targeting IL-4 and IL-13 signaling have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, and approval of more biological therapeutics is on the horizon. These medications decrease the frequency of asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid usage, and improve health-related quality of life. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, specific indications, benefits, and side effects of each of the approved biological therapies for asthma. Furthermore, this article reviews how a clinician could use specific patient characteristics to decide which biologic treatment may be optimal for a given patient.

Effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma with and without chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a PROXIMA study post hoc analysis

Background

A significant proportion of patients with severe asthma may also suffer from nasal polyposis, which is commonly defined as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the presence of which may adversely affect asthma treatment outcomes. The biologic agent omalizumab is effective as add-on therapy in patients with severe allergic asthma. The aim of this post hoc analysis of the PROXIMA study was to compare the efficacy of omalizumab between patients with severe allergic asthma, with and without comorbid CRSwNP.

Methods

PROXIMA was a prospective observational 2-part study conducted in Italy in adult patients with severe allergic asthma, where, in the second part, patients eligible for add-on omalizumab initiated treatment for 12 months. Patient baseline data such as comorbidities and history of exacerbations were collected. Outcomes were asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]), lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]) and exacerbation rate. The post hoc analysis compared these outcomes between the cohort with comorbid CRSwNP and the cohort without CRSwNP.

Results

Of 123 patients included in this analysis, 17 (13.8%) were in the CRSwNP cohort. There was no significant difference between cohorts in baseline clinical characteristics or in change from baseline at 12 months in ACQ values,  % of predicted FEV₁ or annual asthma exacerbation rate, although results were numerically in favor of the CRSwNP cohort versus the non-CRSwNP cohort. The proportion of patients who achieved an improvement in all three outcomes was numerically greater in the CRSwNP cohort (35.7% vs 23.0%).

Conclusions

In an observational real-world setting, add-on omalizumab for severe allergic asthma was effective in improving asthma control, lung function and in reducing exacerbations, including in those patients with CRSwNP.

Biological Therapies of Severe Asthma and Their Possible Effects on Airway Remodeling

Asthma is a chronic and heterogenic respiratory tract disorder with a high global prevalence. The underlying chronic inflammatory process and airway remodeling (AR) contribute to the symptomatology of the disease. The most severely ill asthma patients may now be treated using a variety of monoclonal antibodies aiming key inflammatory cytokines involved in asthma pathogenesis. Although clinical data shows much beneficial effects of biological therapies in terms of reduction of exacerbation rates, improvement of lung functions, asthma control and patients' quality of life, little is known on the effects of these monoclonal antibodies on AR—a key clinical trait of long-term asthma management. In this review, the authors summarize the data on the proven effects of monoclonal antibodies in asthma on AR. To date, in terms of reversing AR, the mostly studied was omalizumab. However, some studies also addressed this clinical issue in context of other severe asthma biological therapies (mepolizumab, benralizumab, tralokinumab). Still, data on effects of particular biological therapies on AR in severe asthma are incomplete and require further studies. According to the American Thoracic Society research recommendations, future research shall focus on AR in asthma and improve drugs targeting AR, including the available and future monoclonal antibodies.

High serum free IL-18 is associated with decreased omalizumab efficacy: findings from a 2-year omalizumab treatment study

OBJECTIVE

Omalizumab is more effective in severe allergic patients with eosinophilic asthma than those with non-eosinophilic asthma. IL-18, a unique cytokine involved in allergic but non-eosinophilic inflammation, might be associated with the latter condition. We aimed to clarify the roles of IL-18 related pathways in insufficient response to omalizumab treatment.

METHODS

Patients with severe allergic asthma who completed 2-year omalizumab treatments at Kyoto University Hospital were included in this study (UMIN000002389). Associations between pretreatment levels of serum free IL-18 in addition to other mediators and asthma phenotypes including responses to omalizumab treatment were analyzed. Changes in serum free IL-18, periostin and total IgE levels during the treatment were also examined.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (19 females, average age of 55.7 years) were examined. Fifteen incomplete responders who experienced exacerbations in the second year, were significantly and more frequently obese and showed significantly earlier asthma onset, lower blood eosinophils and more exacerbations before omalizumab treatment than complete responders. Significantly more patients showed high baseline serum free IL-18 levels (≥141 pg/mL, a threshold for the highest tertile) among the incomplete responders than complete responders. Patients with high serum free IL-18 levels shared similar characteristics with incomplete responders, showing significant reductions in serum total IgE levels during omalizumab treatment. Finally, serum free IL-18 levels negatively correlated with serum periostin levels at baseline and in change ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

High baseline serum free IL-18 levels may predict reduced omalizumab efficacy in severe allergic patients with type-2 low asthma, regarding reduction of exacerbations.

Promises and challenges of biologics for severe asthma

Patients with severe asthma that remain uncontrolled incur significant medical burden and healthcare costs. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous airway disorder with complex pathophysiological mechanisms which can be broadly divided into type 2 (T2)-high and T2-low inflammatory pathways. Recent advances in asthma therapeutics with the advent of biologics have heralded an era of promising targeted therapy in this group of patients. The current available biologics, including anti-IgE mAb, anti-IL-5/IL-5R mAb and anti-IL-4Rα mAb, mainly target patients with an asthma endotype characterised by T2-high inflammation. While they have delivered positive outcomes in terms of reduction in exacerbations, improving lung function and quality of life, as well as reducing the dependence on oral corticosteroids, they have not functioned as the "panacea" as a significant proportion of patients do not respond completely to these targeted therapies. In addition, there is a lack of markers that can predict treatment response and clinicians are guided only by subjective asthma symptom scores. Suboptimal treatment response is common for individual patients. There has also been a dearth of effective targeted therapy for patients with T2-low asthma and treatment options remain limited for these patients. There is a pipeline of newer biologics targeting cytokines that operate at the interface between innate and adaptive immunity (e.g. IL-17A, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), IL-25, IL-33, IL-32 and IL-36γ) with potential of modifying and reducing the severity of asthma. This commentary provides an overview of treatment with the current biologics and highlights the limitations, challenges and unmet needs in clinical management. We also summarise up-and-coming potential targets and therapeutic biologics for severe asthma.

FENOMA Study: Achieving Full Control in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Introduction

A Spanish real-world study in patients with severe persistent asthma who achieved asthma control after a one-year treatment with omalizumab highlighted the phenotypic heterogeneity of these patients (FENOMA study). In this subanalysis, we describe the clinical improvement in patients with severe allergic asthma in this study (positive skin test and IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL); n=240.

Patients and Methods

FENOMA was an observational, multicentre, retrospective study in 345 patients achieving asthma control according to Spanish guidelines (GEMA). Baseline demographic and asthma-related characteristics were collected. Outcomes analyzed were those included in asthma control definition plus changes in background treatments and in blood eosinophil count (%) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction [FeNO].

Results

At baseline, patients were aged 45.4±15.0 years; 67% were women. Median (Q1;Q3) IgE levels were 302.5 (154.0; 553.5) IU/mL. After one-year treatment with omalizumab: 43.3% of patients had daytime symptoms vs 97.7% before treatment and 49.6% stopped taking oral corticosteroids. FEV₁ increased a median of 12.0 (4.0; 23.0)%; P <0.0001. The number of non-severe asthma exacerbations decreased a median of -4.0 (-7.0; 2.0); P <0.0001. Median unplanned visits to primary care or specialists and days of school/workplace absenteeism decreased from 4.9 (2.0; 6.0), 1.0 (0.0; 3.0) and 0.0 (0.0; 14.0) to 0.0 (0.0; 1.0), 0.0 (0.0; 0.0) and 0.0 (0.0; 0.0), respectively. Median eosinophil blood count and FeNO decreased from 5.0 (3:0; 8.0)% to 3.0 (2.0; 5.5)% and from 36.0 (23:0; 53.0) ppb to 20.0 (13.0; 34.0) ppb, respectively.

Conclusion

This study highlights the asthma control achieved by patients with severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab, with relevant benefits on the burden of the disease both on patients and the healthcare system.

Roles of omalizumab in various allergic diseases

IgE and mast cells play a pivotal role in various allergic diseases, including asthma, allergic rhinitis, and urticaria. Treatment with omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, has significantly improved control of these allergic diseases and introduced a new era for the management of severe allergic conditions. About 10 years of experience with omalizumab treatment for severe allergic asthma confirmed its effectiveness and safety, reducing symptoms, frequency of reliever use, and severe exacerbations in patients with intractable conditions. Omalizumab is particularly useful in childhood asthma, where atopic conditions often determine clinical courses of asthma. Recently, omalizumab is approved for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) with the fixed dose of 300 mg. Although the mechanisms underlying the actions of omalizumab in CSU are not fully clarified, nearly 90% of patients with CSU showed a complete or a partial response to omalizumab treatment. Furthermore, omalizumab is just approved for the treatment of severe Japanese cedar pollinosis (JC) based on the successful results of an add-on study of omalizumab for inadequately controlled severe pollinosis despite antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids. For proper use of omalizumab to treat severe JC, co-administration of antihistamines is necessary, while patients should meet the criteria including strong sensitization to Japanese cedar pollen (≥class 3) and poor control under standard treatment. In the management of severe allergic diseases using omalizumab, issues including cost and concerns about relapse after its discontinuation should be overcome. At the same time, possibilities for application to other intractable allergic diseases should be considered.

New biological treatments for asthma and skin allergies

Allergies are typically endemic, complex and heterogeneous diseases with a high impact at quality of life. Mechanistically, type 2 immune responses involving eosinophil and basophil granulocytes, mast cells and humoral factors such as IgE are key drivers of allergic diseases. Fighting allergic diseases knows three strategies: prevention, symptomatic and causative therapy. While remarkable progress was made in understanding molecular events in allergies as a prerequisite for effective prevention and desensitization, this review article focuses on the most efficient symptomatic treatments-that is using more and more specific antibodies neutralizing particular immune pathways. We highlight and classify recent and upcoming developments in the three prototype chronic allergic diseases allergic asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic eczema. In all three examples, biologics such as dupilumab or omalizumab become reliable and efficient therapeutic options. Finally, we give an outlook how a diagnostic and therapeutic workflow might look like in the near future for these three major burdens of society.

Omalizumab for Severe Allergic Asthma Treatment in Italy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from PROXIMA Study

Introduction

Inadequately controlled severe asthma patients require additional therapy accounting for significant clinical and economic burden. Our analysis aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in the management of severe allergic asthma in Italy based on observational data from the PROXIMA study.

Methods

Observational data on efficacy, healthcare resource utilization and changes in quality of life at 12 months after the initiation of omalizumab were examined to estimate the cost-effectiveness compared to pre-omalizumab period and results were expressed with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). The cost–utility analysis estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Direct health costs were assessed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Results

Omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, number of hospitalizations, physician visits, and improved quality of life after 12 months of treatment. Omalizumab had a greater effectiveness than pre-omalizumab treatment involving 0.132 QALYs gained and led to a €3729 per patient reduction in direct healthcare costs, excluding the add-on treatment cost. Nevertheless, the addition of omalizumab cost led to €7478 increase in total direct costs with respect to pre-omalizumab period. Based on difference in total direct cost and difference in QALY between post and pre-omalizumab period, the ICER was €56,847. According to sensitivity analysis, omalizumab provided a cost-effective use of NHS resources, already at 20% discounted price.

Conclusion

This study offers a real-world evidence of omalizumab effectiveness in Italy. Despite the high acquisition cost of the innovative drug, omalizumab is a sustainable treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Benefits and Harms of Omalizumab Treatment in Adolescent and Adult Patients With Chronic Idiopathic (Spontaneous) Urticaria: A Meta-analysis of "Real-world" Evidence

Importance

Omalizumab is indicated for the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) (also known as chronic spontaneous urticaria) in adolescents and adults with persistent hives not controlled with antihistamines. The effectiveness of omalizumab in the real-world management of CIU is largely unknown.

Objective

To quantitatively synthesize what is known about the benefits and harms of omalizumab in the real-world clinical management of CIU regarding urticaria activity, treatment response, and adverse events.

Data Sources

Published observational studies (January 1, 2006, to January 1, 2018) and scientific abstracts on the effectiveness of omalizumab in CIU were identified using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane search engines; references were searched to identify additional studies.

Study Selection

Included studies were observational in design and included at least 1 outcome in common with other studies and at a concurrent time point of exposure to omalizumab. A total of 67 articles (35.2% of those screened) were included in the analysis.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed; independent selection and data extraction were completed by 2 observers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were change in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7; range, 0-42), change in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS; range 0-6) (higher score indicating worse outcome in both scales), complete and partial response rates (percentages), and adverse event rate (percentage).

Results

Omalizumab therapy was associated with an improvement in UAS7 scores (-25.6 points, 95% CI, -28.2 to -23.0; P < .001; 15 studies, 294 patients), an improvement in UAS scores (-4.7 points, 95% CI, -5.0 to -4.4, P < .001; 10 studies, 1158 patients), an average complete response rate of 72.2% (95% CI, 66.1%-78.3%; P < .001; 45 studies, 1158 patients) with an additional average partial response rate of 17.8% (95% CI, 11.7%-23.9%; P < .001; 37 studies, 908 patients), and an average adverse event rate of 4.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-7.0%; P < .001; any level of severity, 47 studies, 1314 patients).

Conclusions and Relevance

Benefits and safety of omalizumab in the real-world treatment of CIU meet or exceed results gleaned from clinical trials. These real-world data on omalizumab in CIU may help inform both clinical treatment expectations and policy decision making.

Retrospective Study on the Association of Biomarkers With Real-world Outcomes of Omalizumab-treated Patients With Allergic Asthma

PURPOSE

Biomarkers, including blood eosinophils (EoS) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), may affect omalizumab outcomes in allergic asthma, but evidence in the literature remains mixed. This study assessed omalizumab outcomes in real-world patients with allergic asthma stratified by pretreatment biomarker levels.

METHODS

Patients with allergic asthma aged ≥12 years initiated on omalizumab with ≥12 months of data after index were identified in the Allergy Partners electronic medical records (2007-2018). Patients with ≥1 diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in combination with ≥10 pack-years of smoking, cystic fibrosis, Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease, and sarcoidosis in the 12 months before or after index were excluded. Patients were stratified by pretreatment EoS (≥/<300 cells/μL) and FeNO (≥/<25 parts per billion). Outcomes, including Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), and FEV₁ as a percentage of predicted value (FEV₁% predicted), were compared using generalized estimating equations at 6 and 12 months after versus before index date in stratified patients with outcome measures available at both time periods.

FINDINGS

A total of 77 and 86 patients were stratified into the high and low EoS strata, respectively, and 56 patients into each of the intermediate-high and low FeNO strata. Compared with 6 months before index, mean difference (MD) in ACT scores at 6 months after index reached the minimally important difference of ≥3 points in high (MD = 3.75; 95% CI, 2.05-5.45) and low (MD = 4.56; 95% CI, 2.86-6.26) EoS, as well in the intermediate-high (MD = 3.75; 95% CI, 1.95-5.55) and low (MD = 3.55; 95% CI, 1.53-5.57) FeNO strata. Statistically significant improvements in mean FEV₁ were observed in the high EoS (MD = 0.22 L/s; 95% CI, 0.08-0.35 L/s) and intermediate-high FeNO (MD = 0.13 L/s; 95% CI, 0.03-0.24 L/s) strata but not in the lower strata. In terms of mean FEV₁% predicted, a statistically significant improvement was observed in high EoS stratum (MD = 4.95%; 95% CI, 0.60%-9.30%). Results that compared 12 months after versus before index date were similar.

IMPLICATIONS

Omalizumab was associated with statistically significant improvements in ACT scores largely reaching or exceeding minimally important difference across biomarker levels and with a statistically significant improvement in lung function more evident in high biomarker strata. Although response varied by biomarkers for some outcomes, all strata indicated improvements on ≥1 measure. Real-world patients with allergic asthma could benefit from omalizumab regardless of pretreatment biomarker levels, suggesting that pretreatment biomarker levels might not inform response.

Real-life studies of biologics used in asthma patients: key differences and similarities to trials

Introduction: The precision medicine approach that is now mandatory for severe asthma management includes the use of novel biologic agents blocking specific immunological mechanisms that are responsible for disease phenotypes and endotypes: monoclonal antibodies blocking IgE, IL-5 and IL-4/IL-13 immunological pathways are so far available. Areas covered: Clinical trials involving a large number of patients proved their efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, improving lung function and quality of life, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroid treatment. Since biologics have been available for routine use, a series of real-life experiences on severe asthmatics treated with them have been published: these studies confirmed the beneficial effects in a real-world setting (effectiveness) of these drugs and showed novel aspects that were not covered by clinical trials, such as their effect on particular subgroup of patients, unexpected adverse events, and potential novel indications. Expert opinion: Both clinical trials and real-life experiences are needed to establish robust data on biologic agents for severe asthma, with real-life studies giving more broader insights on different aspects related to the biologics themselves and to the disease.