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

Precision medicine and choosing a biologic in asthma: understanding the current state of knowledge for predictors of response and clinical remission

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review updated key literature on comparative meta-analyses and real-world effectiveness of asthma biologics, with a focus on predictors of response and clinical remission while highlighting ongoing knowledge gaps. We aim to provide insight into the many factors to consider when choosing a biologic to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Predictors of response included higher type 2 (T2) biomarkers, shorter duration of asthma, and presence of key T2-related comorbidities. There were outcome-related variations in predictors. Predictors of clinical remission included better controlled asthma, better lung function, and higher T2 biomarkers. Few real-world studies included those treated with tezepelumab, a clear knowledge gap.

SUMMARY

Asthma biologics demonstrate clear real-world effectiveness. There have been significant strides in better understanding predictors of response or clinical remission to guide management, yet ongoing knowledge gaps and the heterogeneity of asthma preclude a simple algorithmic approach. Our tools for precision medicine include consideration of clinical phenotypes and shared decision making while striving to achieve clinical remission in all our patients with asthma.

IgE-FcεRI protein-protein interaction as a therapeutic target against allergic asthma: An updated review

In the last decade, research has clarified the binding interactions between immunoglobulin E (IgE) and its high-affinity receptor, the FcεRI alpha chain (FcεRI). The formation of the IgE-FcεRI complex is crucial in the context of atopic allergies, linking allergen recognition to cellular activation and disease manifestation. Consequently, pharmacological strategies that disrupt these interactions are vital for managing atopic conditions. Historically, the complexity of the IgE-FcεRI binding process and challenges in producing functional recombinant derivatives has complicated data interpretation. However, advancements in structural biology, protein engineering, and immunological studies have enhanced our understanding of these protein-protein interactions (PPI), facilitating the development of more effective therapies. The introduction of anti-IgE therapies underscores the significance of the IgE-FcεRI PPI in allergic asthma. IgE, that is present locally and systemically, serves as a sensory mechanism in the adaptive immune response, particularly in mast cells (MCs) and basophils. When bound to FcεRI, IgE enables rapid memory responses to allergens, but dysregulation can lead to severe allergic asthma. Thus, the reactivity of IgE sensors can be finely modulated using various IgE-associated molecules. This review explores the mechanisms underlying IgE-dependent MC activation and its regulation by these molecules, including the latest therapeutic candidates under investigation.

Multiomic Integration Analysis for Monitoring Severe Asthma Treated With Mepolizumab or Omalizumab

RATIONALE

Biologics are becoming increasingly important in the management of severe asthma. However, little is known about the systemic immunometabolic consequences of Th2 response blockage.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a better immunometabolic understanding of the effects of mepolizumab and omalizumab treatments by identifying potential biomarkers for monitoring.

METHODS

In this exploratory longitudinal study severe asthmatic patients were followed for 18 months after initiating mepolizumab (n = 36) or Omalizumab (n = 20) treatment. Serum samples were collected before, 6, and 18 months after treatment. Targeted omic approaches were performed to analyze inflammatory metabolites (n = 35) and proteins (n = 45). Multiomic integration was performed individually for each treatment applying supervised analysis Data Integration Analysis for Biomarker discovery using Latent cOmponents (DIABLO) framework. Then, potential biomarkers were confirmed using multivariate ROC analyses and correlated with clinical variables along treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Mepolizumab and omalizumab were both effective (improved clinical variables) and showed different and specific metabolic and protein profiles in severe asthmatic patients during treatment. Multiomic integration and multivariate ROC analyses identified specific biomarkers, such as arachidonic acid, palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, propionylcarnitine, bilirubin, CCL11, and TNFSF10, which can explain the differences observed with Mepolizumab treatment over 18 months and significantly correlate with clinical improvement. However, no significant biomolecules and no discriminative multivariate ROC curves were found for Omalizumab treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide a comprehensive insight into the differential effects of mepolizumab and omalizumab on the immunometabolic kinetics of the inflammatory response in severe asthma. We identified a set of biomolecules with potential for monitoring mepolizumab treatment which could be useful for personalized medicine.

Chest CT assess the impact of omalizumab treatment on airway remodeling in refractory asthma

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the benefits of omalizumab treatment in patients through real-world follow-up and assess the impact of omalizumab treatment on airway remodeling using chest CT.

METHODS

This is a single-center prospective, observational study included Chinese patients with refractory asthma who received omalizumab treatment from May 2021 to December 2022. We collected real-world clinical data, including their hospitalization information, pulmonary function, FENO, laboratory assessment, ACT scores, chest CT at baseline and every follow-up month. A comparison was made between the pre-treatment and post-treatment laboratory indicators, pulmonary function, airway parameters, and mucous plug scores under chest CT.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 61 patients with refractory asthma treated with omalizumab. The study found that: ①regardless of whether the treatment lasted for a full four months or not, it significantly improved patient asthma control scores and reduced hospitalization costs and length of stay (p < 0.05). ②After four months of treatment, pulmonary ventilation function examination revealed significant improvements (p < 0.05) in MEF75, MEF50, MEF75/25, PEF, and FEV1/FVC. ③After four months of omalizumab treatment, the ratio of wall thickness and outer radius (T/D) and wall area percentage (WA%) of the bronchial wall decreased significantly (p < 0.05). ④After medication, the expression of airway mucous plugs decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab treatment can reduce airway wall thickness, decrease the percentage of airway wall area, and the expression of airway mucous plugs, thereby improving airflow limitation. Utilizing chest CT provides a novel and intuitive assessment of the efficacy of omalizumab treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, the number is ChiCTR2100046343.

Current Biologic Therapies for Severe Asthma and Real-World Data: Are Expectations Being Met?

Advances in knowledge about clinical features, physiology, and underlying immunology are leading to targeted therapies and a new era of therapies. Biological treatments for severe asthma have changed the way this disease is managed, especially in patients who do not respond adequately to conventional treatments with corticosteroids and bronchodilators. These treatments block the action of different molecules involved in the immune response and in the inflammation of the airways, bronchoconstriction, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and excessive mucus production. Currently, there are sufficient real-life data to corroborate the good results obtained in clinical trials by these type of drugs for severe asthma patients. Observational studies reveal their efficacy and safety, reducing exacerbations, leading to fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and improving quality of life with better asthma control and better functional status.

Real-World Studies of Biologics for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Asthma

Presently, there are 6 biologic agents available for treatment of asthma. Each of these agents has undergone robust clinical trials in their approval programs. Such studies rely upon very rigid entry criteria that may not translate to real-world efficacy. Thus, exploring the efficacy of these agents in a larger, more heterogeneous, population brings a sense of comfort regarding their efficacy in the real-world. This review explores the available literature regarding the use of biologics in the real world, with a focus on markers of likely response to therapy.

Clinical remission maintained and improved over time in patients with severe asthma treated with omalizumab

BACKGROUND

Clinical remission has recently been proposed as a possible treatment goal even in severe asthma. In this real-world study, we aimed to assess the achievement rate and predictive factors of clinical remission using omalizumab in patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients with severe asthma initiated with omalizumab therapy and recruited from the asthma clinic of the Akdeniz University Hospital, Turkey. Clinical remission was defined as patients who received no oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy; showed no exacerbations; showed an asthma control questionnaire score of ≤ 1, asthma control test (ACT) of ≥ 20, or both and, FEV1 of ≥ 80% predicted.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included in the study, with an average age of 56.4 ± 13.6 years. The mean duration of asthma was 23.5 ± 11.8 years and the mean duration of omalizumab treatment was 80.05 ± 35.04 months. Clinical remission rates were 25.9% in the first and second year, 34.0% in the third year, 34.1% in the fourth year and 47.4% in the fifth year. Pre-omalizumab ACT, FEV1 (%) and OCS use were significantly higher in patients with clinical remission at 1 year. Logistic regression analyses showed that none of the factors predicted clinical remission.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab has the potential to induce disease remission in a significant proportion of people with severe asthma, and this is maintained and improved over time.

Eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma varies by healthcare provider type in the US: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Patients with asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype may be eligible for additional treatment options to improve disease control; however, the prevalence and frequency of eosinophil testing is unknown. This study assessed blood eosinophil count testing prevalence in patients with asthma by exacerbation frequency and healthcare provider (HCP) type.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, longitudinal, real-world study (GSK ID: 214470) utilizing the Merative Explorys® Universe electronic health records database. Eligible patients had ≥ 2 asthma diagnostic codes (January 2016-December 2018) (Index date: first asthma diagnosis). Outcomes included patient demographics and clinical characteristics (12 months pre-index [baseline]), and prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing, stratified by exacerbation frequency (infrequent exacerbations [< 2]) or frequent exacerbations [≥ 2] or primary HCP (Allergist/Pulmonologist, a primary care physician [PCP] or other HCP) during the 12 months post-index (follow-up).

RESULTS

Of 400,254 patients included (mean age: 51.2 years; 70.8% female), the most common provider type at baseline was a PCP (76.8%). A higher proportion of patients with frequent exacerbations had blood eosinophil count tests at baseline (55.4-69.5%) and follow-up (67.9-75.1%), compared with patients with infrequent exacerbations (55.5-63.7%, 62.4-67.3%). Significantly more patients in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup had ≥ 1 blood eosinophil count test result compared with patients in the PCP subgroup at both baseline (59.9% vs. 50.7%; p < 0.001) and follow-up (59.0% vs. 56.2%; p < 0.001). In the total population, the mean (SD) number of tests ordered was 3.4 (5.3) and 4.1 (6.4) during the baseline and follow-up periods, respectively. A greater mean number of tests were ordered for patients with frequent exacerbations, most apparently in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup during baseline and follow-up (7.4 vs. 4.9). For patients with frequent exacerbations and blood eosinophil count test results, the mean (SD) number of tests ranged from 3.1 (4.6) to 5.8 (8.3) at baseline and 5.1 (8.5) to 7.4 (10.6) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma remains suboptimal. Routine blood eosinophil count testing should be considered by HCPs for patients with asthma to increase identification of the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, which may inform the decision to advance to targeted biologic therapy.

Protective Effect of Allergen Immunotherapy in Patients With Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Against COVID-19 Infection: Observational, Nationwide, and Multicenter Study

Background

Allergic diseases are associated with an increased susceptibility to respiratory tract infections. Although allergen immunotherapy (AIT) alters the course of allergies, there is limited evidence from clinical practice demonstrating its ability to enhance the host defense against pathogens.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the protective effect of AIT against viral infection in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AS) based on clinical evidence.

Methods

A multicenter, questionnaire-based survey was conducted during a tremendous surge in COVID-19 cases between February 10, 2023, and March 15, 2023, in 81 centers across China recruiting healthy volunteers and patients with AR and AS to investigate the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection.

Results

Of 10,151 participants recruited in the survey, 3654 patients and 2192 healthy volunteers who tested positive for COVID-19 were included in this analysis after screening. Overall, no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes were observed between patients and healthy volunteers. An additional 451 patients were excluded due to their use of biologics as the sole add-on treatment, leaving 3203 patients in the further analysis. Of them, 1752 were undergoing routine medication treatment (RMT; the RMT group), whereas 1057 and 394 were receiving AIT and a combination of AIT and omalizumab (OMA) as adjunct therapies to RMT, respectively (AIT+RMT and AIT+OMA+RMT groups). The AIT group showed milder COVID-19 symptoms, shorter recovery periods, and a lower likelihood of hospitalization or emergency department visits than the RMT group (all P<.05). After adjusting for confounding factors, including demographic characteristics and COVID-19 vaccination, AIT remained a significant protective factor associated with shorter recovery time (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.75; adjusted P<.001) and a lower incidence of hospitalization or emergency department visits (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.98; adjusted P=.03). Furthermore, the AIT+OMA+RMT group showed greater protection with a shorter recovery time (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.74; adjusted P<.001) than the AIT+RMT group.

Conclusions

Our multicenter observational study provides valuable clinical evidence supporting the protective effect of AIT against COVID-19 infection in patients with AR and AS.

Reduced Effectiveness of Anti-IgE Treatment Among Adults with Severe Asthma with Older Age of Asthma Onset: Results from the CHRONICLE Study

Purpose

Younger age of asthma onset (AAO) has been associated with an allergic phenotype, whereas eosinophilic phenotypes have been associated with older AAO. In randomized trials, biologic efficacy among adults with severe asthma (SA) has varied by age at asthma onset. To determine whether these associations observed in trials apply to real-world outcomes, this study examined biologic effectiveness by AAO and biologic class in a large, real-world cohort.

Patients and methods

CHRONICLE is an ongoing, real-world study of US adults with subspecialist-treated SA receiving biologics, maintenance corticosteroids, or who are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2022 who initiated a biologic for SA and had complete data for analysis were included. A locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) analysis was used to plot the relationship between percentage exacerbation rate reduction and AAO by biologic class.

Results

Of 578 patients with complete data, 198, 149, and 231 were diagnosed with asthma at age <18, 18-39, and ≥40 years, respectively. Across subgroups, patients were predominantly White (72-78%), female (67-73%), and commercially insured (54-71%). In the LOESS analysis, exacerbation rate reductions were similar for anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/5R and anti-IL-4R subgroups with younger AAO, but the exacerbation rate reduction diminished for patients with older AAO receiving anti-IgE therapy, particularly with asthma onset age ≥40 years.

Conclusion

Clinicians should consider age of onset in biologic treatment decisions, given reduced effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with asthma onset at age ≥40 years.

Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier

NCT03373045.

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort

BACKGROUND

Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma.

METHODS

Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day.

RESULTS

5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

Biologics in T2 Severe Asthma: Unveiling Different Effectiveness by Real-World Indirect Comparison

Background: Indirect comparison among biologics in severe asthma (SA) is a challenging but desirable goal for clinicians in real life. The aim of the study is to define characteristics of a biologic-treated T2-driven-SA population and to evaluate the effectiveness of biologic treatments in a real-world setting by variation in intra/inter-biologic parameters in an up to 4-year follow-up. Methods: Demographic, clinical, functional, and biological characteristics were evaluated retrospectively in 104 patients recruited until July 2022 at baseline (T0) and over a maximum of 4 years (T4) of biologic therapy (omalizumab/OmaG = 41, from T0 to T4, mepolizumab/MepoG = 26, from T0 to T4, benralizumab/BenraG = 18, from T0 to T2, and dupilumab/DupiG = 19, from T0 to T1). Variations of parameters using means of paired Delta were assessed. Results: At baseline, patients had high prevalence of T2-driven comorbidities, low asthma control test (ACT mean 17.65 ± 4.41), impaired pulmonary function (FEV1 65 ± 18 %pred), frequent exacerbations/year (AEs 3.5 ± 3), and OCS dependence (60%). DupiG had lower T2 biomarkers/comorbidities and AEs, and worse FEV1 (57 ± 19 %pred) compared to other biologics (p < 0.05). All biologics improved ACT, FEV1%, FVC%, AEs rate, and OCS use. FEV1% improved in MepoG and BenraG over the minimal clinically important difference and was sustained over 4 years in OmaG and MepoG. A significant RV reduction in OmaG (T4) and DupiG (T1), and BenraG normalization (T2) of airflow limitation were found. We observed through inter-biologic parameters pair delta variation comparison a significant nocturnal awakenings reduction in BenraG vs. OmaG/MepoG, and neutrophils reduction in BenraG/DupiG vs. OmaG. Conclusions: Indirect comparison among biologics unveils clinical and functional improvements that may mark a different effectiveness. These results may highlight the preference of a single biologic compared to another with regard to specific treatable traits.

A comprehensive analysis on the safety of two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab

Dupilumab was approved for the treatment of several dermatologic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and bullous pemphigoid; whereas omalizumab is the first biological agent which was approved to treat chronic spontaneous urticaria. None of the published meta-analyses has provided the sufficient data regarding the safety of these two biologics, especially regarding their potential serious adverse events (SAEs). The aim of this study was, to comprehensively evaluate the safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. In this study, we included 32 randomized trials, and performed meta-analyses on 113 types of SAEs regarding dupilumab and 61 types of SAEs regarding omalizumab. We identified that: (1) use of dupilumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of atopic dermatitis, while use of omalizumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of asthma; and (2) use of dupilumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 112 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases, while use of omalizumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 60 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases. This meta-analysis for the first time assessed the association between use of dupilumab or omalizumab and incidences of various SAEs, and identified that neither dupilumab use nor omalizumab use was associated with the increased risks of any SAEs including various infectious diseases. These findings further confirm the general safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. This informs clinicians that there is no need to worry too much about the safety issues of these two biologics.

Outcomes of biological therapy in patients with severe asthma with chronic rhinosinusitis in Saudi Arabia: patients with nasal polyps versus those without nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

This study's purposes were to evaluate the impact of biological therapies on outcomes in patients with severe asthma (SA) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and to compare these effects among those with NP (CRSwNP) versus those without NP (CRSsNP) in the "real-world" setting in Saudi Arabian patients.

METHODS

From March to September 2022, a retrospective observational cohort study was undertaken at the severe asthma clinics of the Armed Forces Hospital-Southern Region (AFHSR) and King Khalid University Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia, to delineate the effects of dupilumab therapy. Outcomes were assessed, including clinical outcomes, FEV1, and laboratory findings before and one year after dupilumab. Post-therapy effects were compared between CRSwNP and CRSsNP.

RESULTS

Fifty subjects were enrolled, with a mean age of 46.56. There were 27 (54%) females and 23(46%) males. Significant improvements in clinical parameters (frequency of asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, the use of OCs, anosmia, SNOTT-22, and the ACT), FEV1, and laboratory ones (serum IgE and eosinophilic count) were observed 6 and 12 months after using dupilumab (p < 0.001), respectively. However, after 12 months of dupilumab therapy, there were no significant differences between those with and without NP with regards to clinical (anosmia, ACT, and OCs use), laboratory (eosinophilic count, serum IgE level) parameters, and FEV1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CRS experienced significant improvements in clinical, FEV1, and laboratory outcomes after dupilumab therapy. However, these improvements were not maintained when comparing CRSwNP with CRSsNP. There were no significant differences between those with and without NP regarding ACT and OCs use or laboratory (eosinophilic count, serum IgE level) parameters. Further prospective multicenter studies are warranted.

Suboptimal Response to Biologics in Severe Asthma-A Marker of Humoral Immunodeficiencies

BACKGROUND

Asthmatic patients with antibody deficiencies (AD) have more severe disease and higher risk of exacerbations. No data exist about the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma (SA) patients with AD.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of biologics in SA patients with and without AD.

METHODS

A case-control real-life study was conducted including 68 patients divided into 2 groups: group 1 with SA-AD and group 2 with SA.

RESULTS

Treatment with biologics for 6 months was effective for decreasing the number of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits and improving the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score; biologics also proved a systemic corticosteroid-sparing effect. Despite benefits, the number of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and ED visits, the mean ACQ score, and the cumulative dose of systemic corticosteroids remain higher in group 1 than in group 2, with lower lung function parameters. The rates of responses in group 1 were inferior to those in group 2, with a decrease by ≥50% of exacerbation rate in 76% versus 97% of patients (P = .006), no hospitalization in 44% versus 91% of patients (P < .001), no ED visit in 56% versus 82% of patients (P = .018), a significant improvement of the ACQ score by ≥0.5 in 68% versus 100% of patients (P < .001), and an increase of forced expiratory volume in the first second by >10% in 32% versus 65% of patients (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evident benefits, SA patients with AD have suboptimal responses to biologics compared with those immunocompetent. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to optimize the management of these patients in practice.

Role of biologics in severe food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examine the dynamic landscape of food allergy treatment within the context of emerging biologics. Our purpose is to comprehensively evaluate the potential benefits, challenges, and transformative impact associated with the utilization of biologics in comparison to conventional therapeutic modalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

This document synthesizes recent scientific investigations to various biologics, such as omalizumab, ligelizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, providing a nuanced understanding of their roles in oral immunotherapy, rapid desensitization, and overall food allergy management. Recent studies and clinical trials highlight the impact of anti-IgE treatment on food allergies, revealing critical findings such as dose-related efficacy, facilitation of rapid desensitization in peanut allergies, and the sustained positive outcomes observed in individuals with multifood allergies.

SUMMARY

The use of biologics presents a groundbreaking approach in the treatment of food allergies. The multifaceted action of these agents, along with their potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional therapies, marks a significant advancement. Despite the persisting challenges of economic constraints and the need for further safety studies, biologics offer a promising avenue for improving the quality of life for individuals with food allergies. Ongoing research and collaborative efforts are imperative to fully realize the transformative potential inherent in these emerging therapeutic frontiers.

Airway and Systemic Immunoglobulin Profiling and Immune Response in Adult Asthma

INTRODUCTION

Immunoglobulins play a vital role in host immune response and in the pathogenesis of conditions like asthma. Therapeutic agents such as monoclonal antibodies target specific elements of the asthmatic inflammatory cascade. Decisions to utilize these medications are often based on systemic inflammatory profiling without direct insight into the airway inflammatory profile. We sought to investigate the relationship between immunoglobulin and cytokine profiles in the airway and systemic immune compartments of adult asthmatics.

METHODS

Blood sampling and bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) were performed in 76 well-defined adult asthmatics. Antibody and cytokine profiles were measured in both BAL and serum using ELISA and quantibody arrays.

RESULTS

There was no relationship between BAL and serum levels of IgE. This is of significance in an asthma population. For some analytes, correlation analysis was significant (P < 0.05) indicating representativeness of our cohort and experimental setup in those cases. Nevertheless, the predictive power (r2) of the BAL-to-serum comparisons was mostly low except for TNF-α (r2 = 0.73) when assuming a simple (linear) relationship.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of sample site when investigating the roles of immunoglobulins and cytokines in disease pathogenesis and suggests that both localized and systemic immune responses are at play. The prescription of asthma monoclonal therapy is generally based on systemic evaluation of cytokine and immunoglobulin levels. Our research suggests that this approach may not fully reflect the pathophysiology of the disease and may provide insight into why some patients respond to these targeted therapies while others do not.

Precision care in the treatment of pediatric asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Precision medicine in pediatric asthma involves identification of asthma phenotypes, genetic markers, biomarkers, and biologics that target specific pathways. This review includes a discussion of the efficacy of currently approved biologics for pediatric asthma and most recent advances in biomarker/phenotype identification and genetic associations that affect asthma care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Biologics targeting type-2 mediated pathways have shown success in the treatment of moderate to severe asthma in pediatric and adult patients. In comparative studies, dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) alpha receptor inhibitor, and mepolizumab, an IL-5 inhibitor, have shown more improvement in asthma exacerbation rates and lung function compared to other biologics such as tezepelumab, omalizumab and benralizumab. Other methods used to categorize asthma treatment response have been investigated and include use of biomarkers such as fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Genomic studies are also emerging in precision care for pediatric asthma.

SUMMARY

An understanding of underlying immunologic and genetic mechanisms affecting the development of asthma in pediatric patients has resulted in the production of numerous targeted therapies that have led to improvement in lung function and reduced exacerbation burden.

Lung function trajectories in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma on mepolizumab, omalizumab, or dupilumab

BACKGROUND

Lung function is an independent predictor of mortality. We evaluated the lung function trajectories of a cohort of patients with asthma receiving biologic therapy.

METHODS

We identified 229 monoclonal antibody-naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who initiated omalizumab, mepolizumab, or dupilumab between 2010 and 2022 in a large healthcare system in Boston, MA. Generalized additive mixed models were used to estimate the lung function trajectories during the 156 weeks following biologic initiation. Response was defined as an improvement in FEV1 or a decrease of ≤0.5% per year. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to assess time to no additional improvement in FEV1 in responders. All models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, baseline exacerbation rate, and baseline blood eosinophil count.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients initiated mepolizumab, 76 omalizumab, and 65 dupilumab. Baseline eosinophil count was highest in the mepolizumab group (405 cells/mcL) and lowest for omalizumab (250 cells/mcL). Both FEV1 and FVC improved in the mepolizumab group (FEV1 + 20 mL/year; FVC +43 mL/year). For omalizumab, there was an initial improvement in the first year followed by decline with an overall FEV1 loss of -44 mL/year and FVC -32 mL/year. For dupilumab, both FEV1 (+61 mL/year) and FVC (+74 mL/year) improved over time. Fifty percent of the mepolizumab group, 58% omalizumab, and 72% of dupilumab were responders. The median time to no additional FEV1 improvement in responders was 24 weeks for omalizumab, 48 weeks for mepolizumab, and 57 weeks for dupilumab.

CONCLUSION

In this clinical cohort, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and dupilumab had beneficial effects on FEV1 and FVC with distinct post-initiation trajectories.

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%).

RESULTS

Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

Efficacy, Safety, and Continuation of Biological Therapy in Older Patients with Asthma in a Real-World Setting: A Retrospective Observational Study

Background

Major randomized clinical trials have shown that biological therapy can reduce the exacerbation rate and oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, data on the continuation, efficacy, and safety of biological therapy in older patients with asthma are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in the continuation rate, efficacy, and safety of biological therapy between older (≥ 65 years) and younger (< 65 years) patients with asthma.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective observational study, we collected clinical data of patients with asthma who were administered biological drugs such as omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab between April 2009 and August 2022. We comparatively analyzed the continuation, efficacy, and safety of biological therapy between older (age ≥ 65 years) and younger patient (age < 65 years) groups. The reasons for discontinuation or switching of biological drugs were also evaluated.

Results

Sixty-two (31 older and 31 younger) patients were treated with 91 biologics during the observational period. The mean age of older patients was 74.3 ± 5.1 years and that of younger patients was 48.0 ± 14.0 years. The continuation rate of biological therapy was not significantly different between the groups. Social background was the most common reason for discontinuation of biological therapy in both groups, and insufficient effect was the most common reason for switching to biological drugs. Asthma exacerbations decreased in both groups within the first 12 months of biologic therapy. The dosage of OCS tended to decrease in the older group and significantly decrease in the younger group.

Conclusion

Biologic therapy for older patients with asthma can be continued, with efficacy and safety similar to those in younger patients with asthma.

Real-World Effectiveness of Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma: Analysis of the KoSAR

PURPOSE

Severe asthma is associated with high morbidity and healthcare utilization; however, treatment options for these patients are limited. This study aimed to determine the therapeutic effects of biologics in clinical practice.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 136 patients who received biologics for at least 4 months between September 2017 and July 2022 at 25 medical centers affiliated with the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR). The study evaluated the treatment effects, including acute exacerbation rates, maintenance of oral corticosteroid dosages, lung function, quality of life, blood eosinophil count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, by comparing measurements before and after 4 months of biologic treatment. Responses for each medication was evaluated based on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness score, and any adverse reactions were summarized.

RESULTS

With the administration of biologics over the course of 4 months, there was a reduction in asthma acute exacerbations, a significant improvement in lung function, and a significant decrease in daily maintenance dose of oral steroid. Blood eosinophil counts decreased in the mepolizumab and reslizumab groups, while FeNO levels decreased only in the dupilumab group. The Asthma Control Test, Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics, and the EuroQol-visual analogue scale scores showed a significant improvement. Most patients (80.15%) responded to the biologic treatment. Meanwhile, non-responders often had chronic rhinosinusitis as a comorbidity, exhibited lower lung function, and required higher doses of oral steroids. No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics are highly effective in Korean patients with Type 2 severe asthma, significantly reducing acute exacerbation rates and doses of oral corticosteroids, while also improving lung function. Therefore, it seems beneficial to administer biologics without any restrictions to patients exhibiting Type 2 severe asthma.

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

Introduction

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Advancements in biologic therapy in eosinophilic asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma encompasses a spectrum of phenotypes often categorized into two groups- type 2 high (T2 high) and type 2 low (T2 low). T2 high includes atopic and eosinophilic presentations whereas T2 low is non-atopic, non-eosinophilic, and oft associated with neutrophilic inflammation. Eosinophilic asthma is often driven by IgE, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 and TSLP. This can lead to eosinophilic inflammatory response in the airways which in turn can be used as target for treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The article will focus on biologic therapy that is currently being used in eosinophilic asthma management in mainly the adult population including clinical trials and co-morbidities that can be treated using the same biologics. A review on asthma biologics for pediatric population has been reviewed elsewhere.

EXPERT OPINION

Biological therapy for asthma targeting the IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP pathways are shown to have benefit for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma, as exemplified in real-world studies. When choosing the right biological agent factors such as phenotype, comorbidities, and cost-effectiveness of the biologic agent must be taken into consideration.

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

Combination of omalizumab with allergen immunotherapy versus immunotherapy alone for allergic diseases: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT)-associated adverse events (AEs) limit its usage in the management of allergic diseases. The monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) and AIT have complementary actions. However, no consensus has been reached on whether their combination could exert superior efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the combination of AIT with omalizumab is superior to AIT alone in treating allergic diseases.

METHODS

The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of omalizumab combined with AIT (omalizumab + AIT) versus AIT alone. A random-effect model was established to estimate outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 11 eligible RCTs (involving 901 patients) were screened out for the meta-analysis. According to a pooled analysis, omalizumab + AIT significantly increased the number of patients achieving the target maintenance dose (TMD) and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to allergens (odds ratio [OR] = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.33-4.44; p = 0.004; I2 = 35%, and OR = 6.77; 95% CI: 2.10-21.80; p = 0.001; I2 = 36%, respectively). Similarly, individuals receiving the combination therapy reported significantly fewer episodes of severe systemic AEs than AIT alone (OR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.18-0.59; p = 0.0003; I2 = 0%). Meanwhile, the improvements in symptom severity score (mean difference [MD] = -0.26), rescue medication daily means score (MD = -0.14), and number of patients consuming epinephrine in AIT (OR = 0.20) were all more evident than those in AIT alone.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab + AIT can significantly enhance the efficacy and safety of AIT by increasing TMD and SU to allergens, while decreasing severe systemic AEs.

The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Food Allergy

The landscape of food allergy (FA) treatment is poised for a paradigm shift with the emergence of biologic therapies. The Food and Drug Administration approval of a standardized peanut powder for oral immunotherapy in 2020 marked a milestone, signaling a departure from allergen avoidance toward proactive treatment strategies. Although oral immunotherapy has been proven effective in desensitizing patients to specific allergens, there are several limitations such as lacking standardization, a long-time commitment to achieve maintenance, and adverse events. Biologics, including omalizumab, dupilumab, and antialarmins, have shown promise in treating various allergic diseases, including FA. These biologics target the underlying immunologic pathways driving allergic reactions, offering an antigen-agnostic approach. Omalizumab (anti-IgE) has been the most studied biologic in this space and can be used both as an adjunct therapy with oral immunotherapy and as monotherapy. Dupilumab targeting IL-4 and IL-13 also shows promise as an adjunct therapy. The emergence of antialarmins further broadens the spectrum of FA treatment possibilities. Biologics represent a transformative approach to FA treatment, directly addressing the underlying mechanisms. Future research should focus on patient selection criteria, personalized biomarker panels, optimal timing of intervention, and treatment durations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Novel Immunopharmacological Drugs for the Treatment of Allergic Diseases

The exponential rise in the prevalence of allergic diseases since the mid-twentieth century has led to a genuine public health emergency and has also fostered major progress in research on the underlying mechanisms and potential treatments. The management of allergic diseases benefits from the biological revolution, with an array of novel immunomodulatory therapeutic and investigational tools targeting players of allergic inflammation at distinct pathophysiological steps. Prominent examples include therapeutic monoclonal antibodies against cytokines, alarmins, and their receptors, as well as small-molecule modifiers of signal transduction mainly mediated by Janus kinases and Bruton's tyrosine kinases. However, the first-line therapeutic options have yet to switch from symptomatic to disease-modifying interventions. Here we present an overview of available drugs in the context of our current understanding of allergy pathophysiology, identify potential therapeutic targets, and conclude by providing a selection of candidate immunopharmacological molecules under investigation for potential future use in allergic diseases.

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.

[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.

Omalizumab Transitions in Severe Asthma: Factors Influencing Switching Decisions and Timing for Optimal Response

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of switching from omalizumab to another biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma and evaluate factors that influenced the decision to switch and determined the optimal time for a good biologic response.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of severe asthma patients was conducted at Al-Rashed Allergy Center, a tertiary center in Kuwait. After meeting the eligibility criteria, patients were divided into two comparative groups: those continuing with omalizumab and those who started with omalizumab but switched to another biologic.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients with severe asthma were recruited, and only 33 had access to multiple biological treatments. Approximately 22.4% switched from omalizumab. Male patients with a history of ischemic heart disease, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyps were more likely to switch if they had higher levels of eosinophils in the sputum. This study showed that every 1% increase in sputum eosinophils doubled the likelihood of a switch. Patients with access to alternative biological options had a much shorter mean duration of omalizumab therapy before switching compared to those with only affordable omalizumab: 4.9 ± 1.5 years versus 8.9 ± 1.3 years (p < 0.001). The optimal time to predict the likelihood of a good response was less than 5.5 years, with an area under the curve of 0.91 and p = 0.003. This cutoff point provided a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 89% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An early transition from omalizumab, specifically within the first 5 years of treatment, in patients with severe asthma and higher sputum eosinophils may enhance the likelihood of a good response if other biological therapies were available.

Asthma Phenotypes in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Asthma is a widespread disease affecting approximately 300-million people globally. This condition leads to significant morbidity, mortality, and economic strain worldwide. Recent clinical and laboratory research advancements have illuminated the immunological factors contributing to asthma. As of now, asthma is understood to be a heterogeneous disease. Personalized medicine involves categorizing asthma by its endotypes, linking observable characteristics to specific immunological mechanisms. Identifying these endotypic mechanisms is paramount in accurately profiling patients and tailoring therapeutic approaches using innovative biological agents targeting distinct immune pathways. This article presents a synopsis of the key immunological mechanisms implicated in the pathogenesis and manifestation of the disease's phenotypic traits and individualized treatments for severe asthma subtypes.

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort.

METHODS

We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy.

RESULTS

Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

Omalizumab for Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in real-world clinical setting: a prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

This single-centre, prospective, observational study included Chinese patients aged 14-75 years with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma according to the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. Omalizumab was administered subcutaneously, and the investigator collected real-world data on exacerbations, steroid exposure, pulmonary function and laboratory assessments at weeks 16, 24, 52, 104 and 156 after treatment initiation. The primary outcome was reduced exacerbations, measured as the proportion of patients with exacerbations in the year following omalizumab initiation. Bowker's test for paired proportions was performed to compare exacerbation rates before and after treatment initiation. A generalised linear mixed model was used to compare the number of exacerbations.

RESULTS

The mean treatment duration was 46.6 weeks for the full analysis set (n=398). The proportion of patients with exacerbations in the year before and after omalizumab initiation was 80.4% (181/225) and 18.7% (42/225) (difference: -61.8%, 95% CI -68.5 to -54.0, p<0.0001), respectively. At week 52, 67.4% of patients discontinued oral corticosteroids, and 19.5% reduced inhaled corticosteroids. The Asthma Control Test scores increased by 4.6 at week 52 from baseline (p<0.001). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s increased by 11.2% and 9.0% at weeks 24 and 52, respectively, from baseline (p<0.01). Injection site reactions (5.2%) were the most frequently reported adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical practice, omalizumab treatment remarkably reduced exacerbations in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Omalizumab reduced the use of oral corticosteroids and improved asthma control and pulmonary function.

Effects of omalizumab combined with budesonide formoterol on clinical efficacy, pulmonary function, immune function, and adverse reactions in children with moderate and severe allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combining omalizumab with budesonide formoterol to treat children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, and investigate the effect of this combination therapy on pulmonary and immune functions.

METHODS

The data of 88 children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, who were admitted to our hospital between July 2021 and July 2022, were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned either to control group (n = 44; received budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) or experimental group (n = 44; received omalizumab subcutaneous injection + budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) using computer-generated randomization. The clinical efficacy, asthma control (measured using childhood Asthma-Control Test [C-ACT] score), pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced vital capacity, and peak expiratory flow), immune function (cluster of differentiation 3 cells [CD3⁺ cells], cluster of differentiation 4 cells [CD4⁺ cells], immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, and immunoglobulin E), and adverse reactions were observed and compared between both groups.

RESULTS

After treatment, the experimental group had improved levels of pulmonary function and immune function indexes, higher C-ACT scores, and a higher overall response rate than the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions was not significantly different between both groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of omalizumab with budesonide formoterol for treating moderate and severe allergic asthma in children demonstrated promising clinical efficacy and improved their pulmonary and immune functions, leading to more rational asthma control. The combined regimen demonstrated satisfactory clinical safety and deserved clinical promotion.

T-helper cells and their cytokines in pathogenesis and treatment of asthma

Prosperous advances in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of chronic inflammation and airway remodeling in asthma have been made over the past several decades. Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways characterized by reversible airway obstruction that is self-resolving or remits with treatment. Around half of asthma patients are "Type-2-high" asthma with overexpression of type 2 inflammatory pathways and elevated type 2 cytokines. When stimulated by allergens, airway epithelial cells secrete IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP to derive a Th2 immune response. First ILC2 followed by Th2 cells produces a series of cytokines such as IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13. TFH cells control IgE synthesis by secreting IL-4 to allergen-specific B cells. IL-5 promotes eosinophil inflammation, while IL-13 and IL-4 are involved in goblet cell metaplasia and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Currently, "Type-2 low" asthma is defined as asthma with low levels of T2 biomarkers due to the lack of reliable biomarkers, which is associated with other Th cells. Th1 and Th17 are capable of producing cytokines that recruit neutrophils, such as IFN-γ and IL-17, to participate in the development of "Type-2-low" asthma. Precision medicine targeting Th cells and related cytokines is essential in the management of asthma aiming at the more appropriate patient selection and better treatment response. In this review, we sort out the pathogenesis of Th cells in asthma and summarize the therapeutic approaches involved as well as potential research directions.

Switching Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma

Currently, three classes of monoclonal antibodies targeting type 2 inflammation pathways are available in Italy for the treatment of severe asthma: anti-IgE (Omalizumab), anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα (Mepolizumab and Benralizumab), and anti-IL-4Rα (Dupilumab). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life studies have been conducted to define their efficacy and identify baseline patients' characteristics potentially predictive of favorable outcomes. Switching to another monoclonal antibody is recommended in case of a lack of benefits. The aim of this work is to review the current knowledge on the impact of switching biological therapies in severe asthma as well as on predictors of treatment response or failure. Almost all of the information about switching from a previous monoclonal antibody to another comes from a real-life setting. In the available studies, the most frequent initial biologic was Omalizumab and patients who were switched because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate despite OCS dependence. The choice of the most suitable treatment may be guided by the patient's clinical history, biomarkers of endotype (mainly blood eosinophils and FeNO), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis). Due to overlapping eligibility, larger investigations characterizing the clinical profile of patients benefiting from switching to different monoclonal antibodies are needed.

Influence of Genetics on the Response to Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma with an Allergic Phenotype

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma with an allergic phenotype. Its effectiveness could be influenced by clinical variables and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in one or more of the genes involved in the mechanism of action and process of response to omalizumab, and these could be used as predictive biomarkers of response. We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma treated with omalizumab in a tertiary hospital. Satisfactory response after 12 months of treatment was defined as (1) Reduction ≥ 50% of exacerbations or no exacerbations, (2) Improvement of lung function ≥ 10% FEV1, and (3) Reduction ≥ 50% of OCS courses or no OCS. Polymorphisms in the FCER1A (rs2251746, rs2427837), FCER1B (rs1441586, rs573790, rs1054485, rs569108), C3 (rs2230199), FCGR2A (rs1801274), FCGR2B (rs3219018, rs1050501), FCGR3A (rs10127939, rs396991), IL1RL1 (rs1420101, rs17026974, rs1921622), and GATA2 (rs4857855) genes were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using TaqMan probes. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were recruited. After 12 months of treatment, the variables associated with a reduction in exacerbations were the absence of polyposis (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95-19.63), IL1RL1 rs17026974-AG (OR = 19.07; 95% CI = 1.27-547), and IL1RL1 rs17026974-GG (OR = 16.76; 95% CI = 1.22-438.76). Reduction in oral corticosteroids (OCS) was associated with age of starting omalizumab treatment (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and blood eosinophil levels > 300 cells/µL (OR = 2.93; 95% CI = 1.01-9.29). Improved lung function showed a relationship to the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR = 12.16; 95% CI = 2.45-79.49), FCGR2B rs3219018-C (OR = 8.6; 95% CI = 1.12-117.15), GATA2 rs4857855-T (OR = 15.98; 95% CI = 1.52-519.57) and FCGR2A rs1801274-G (OR = 13.75; 95% CI = 2.14-142.68; AG vs. AA and OR = 7.46; 95% CI = 0.94-89.12; GG vs. AA). Meeting one response criterion was related to FCER1A rs2251746-TT (OR = 24; 95% CI = 0.77-804.57), meeting two to age of asthma diagnosis (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88-0.99), and meeting all three to body mass index (BMI) < 25 (OR = 14.23; 95% CI = 3.31-100.77) and C3 rs2230199-C (OR = 3; 95% CI = 1.01-9.92). The results of this study show the possible influence of the polymorphisms studied on the response to omalizumab and the clinical benefit that could be obtained by defining predictive biomarkers of treatment response.

Cutoff Values of MASK-air Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

BACKGROUND

In clinical and epidemiological studies, cutoffs of patient-reported outcome measures can be used to classify patients into groups of statistical and clinical relevance. However, visual analog scale (VAS) cutoffs in MASK-air have not been tested.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate cutoffs for VAS global, nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design of all MASK-air participants, we compared (1) approaches based on the percentiles (tertiles or quartiles) of VAS distributions and (2) data-driven approaches based on clusters of data from 2 comparators (VAS work and VAS sleep). We then performed sensitivity analyses for individual countries and for VAS levels corresponding to full allergy control. Finally, we tested the different approaches using MASK-air real-world cross-sectional and longitudinal data to assess the most relevant cutoffs.

RESULTS

We assessed 395,223 days from 23,201 MASK-air users with self-reported allergic rhinitis. The percentile-oriented approach resulted in lower cutoff values than the data-driven approach. We obtained consistent results in the data-driven approach. Following the latter, the proposed cutoff differentiating "controlled" and "partly-controlled" patients was similar to the cutoff value that had been arbitrarily used (20/100). However, a lower cutoff was obtained to differentiate between "partly-controlled" and "uncontrolled" patients (35 vs the arbitrarily-used value of 50/100).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a data-driven approach, we were able to define cutoff values for MASK-air VASs on allergy and asthma symptoms. This may allow for a better classification of patients with rhinitis and asthma according to different levels of control, supporting improved disease management.

Evaluation of the clinical features and laboratory data of patients with severe asthma classified as super-responder or non super-responder to omalizumab treatment: a single-centre real-life study

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is used for the treatment of severe allergic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical features and laboratory data of patients with severe allergic asthma classified as super-responder or non super-responder to omalizumab.

METHODS

Comparisons were made of the laboratory data and clinical features of patients with severe allergic asthma. Patients who had no asthma exacerbation, no oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, asthma control test (ACT) score >20 and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) >80% were considered super-responder after omalizumab.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were included in the study, comprising 19 (21.1%) males. The age at onset of asthma, allergic rhinitis rate, number of endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESS), intranasal corticosteroid (INS) use, baseline FEV 1 (%) and ACT score were significantly higher in the omalizumab super-responder group (p = 0.013, p = 0.015, p = 0.002, p = 0.001, p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The duration of asthma, rate of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP), regular use of OCS, baseline eosinophil count and eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were significantly higher in the omalizumab non super-responder group (p = 0.015, p < 0.001, p = 0.004, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Blood eosinophil count (AUC: 0.187, p < 0.001), eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (AUC: 0.150, p < 0.001) and FEV1 (%) (AUC:0.779, p = 0.001) were determined to have diagnostic value in predicting the treatment response to omalizumab of patients with severe allergic asthma.

CONCLUSION

High-blood eosinophil levels, CRSwNP and low pretreatment lung capacity may affect omalizumab treatment response in patients with severe allergic asthma. These results should be supported by further multicenter real-life studies.

Mapping knowledge structure and research of the biologic treatment of asthma: A bibliometric study

Background

Bronchial asthma (asthma) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways, involving a variety of cells and cellular components, that manifests clinically as recurrent episodes of wheezing, shortness of breath, with or without chest tightness or cough, airway hyperresponsiveness, and variable airflow limitation. The number of people with asthma has reached 358 million worldwide and asthma causes huge economic loss. However, there is a subset of patients who are not sensitive to existing drugs and the existing drugs have many adverse effects. Therefore, it's important to find new drugs for asthma patients.

Methods

Publications related to biologics in asthma published from 2000 to 2022 were retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection. The search strategies were as follows: topic: TS=(biologic* OR "biologic* product*" OR "biologic* therap*" OR biotherapy* OR "biologic* agent*" OR Benralizumab OR "MEDI-563" OR Fasenra OR "BIW-8405" OR Dupilumab OR SAR231893 OR "SAR-231893" OR Dupixent OR REGN668 OR "REGN-668" OR Mepolizumab OR Bosatria OR "SB-240563" OR SB240563 OR Nucala OR Omalizumab OR Xolair OR Reslizumab OR "SCH-55700" OR SCH55700 OR "CEP-38072" OR CEP38072 OR Cinqair OR "DCP-835" OR DCP835 OR Tezspire OR "tezepelumab-ekko" OR "AMG-157" OR tezspire OR "MEDI-9929" OR "MEDI-19929" OR MEDI9929 OR Itepekimab OR "REGN-3500"OR REGN3500 OR "SAR-440340"OR SAR440340 OR Tralokinumab OR "CAT-354" OR Anrukinzumab OR "IMA-638" OR Lebrikizumab OR "RO-5490255"OR "RG-3637"OR "TNX-650"OR "MILR1444A"OR "MILR-1444A"OR"PRO301444"OR "PRO-301444"OR Pitrakinra OR altrakincept OR "AMG-317"OR"AMG317" OR Etokimab OR Pascolizumab OR "IMA-026"OR Enokizumab OR "MEDI-528"OR "7F3COM-2H2" OR 7F3COM2H2 OR Brodalumab OR "KHK-4827" OR "KHK4827"OR "AMG-827"OR Siliq OR Ligelizumab OR "QGE-031" OR QGE031 OR Quilizumab OR Talizumab OR "TNX-901" OR TNX901 OR Infliximab OR Etanercept OR "PRS-060") AND TS=asthma*. The document type was set to articles and review articles and the language restriction was set to English. Three different analysis tools including one online platform, VOS viewer1.6.18, and CiteSpace V 6.1.R1 software were used to conduct this bibliometric study.

Results

This bibliometric study included 1,267 English papers published in 244 journals from 2,012 institutions in 69 countries/regions. Omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, and tezepelumab in relation to asthma were the research hotspots in the field.

Conclusion

This study systematically uncovers a holistic picture of existing literature related to the biologic treatment of asthma over the past 20 years. We consulted scholars in order to understand key information in this field from the perspective of bibliometrics, which we believe may greatly facilitate future research in this field.

Impact of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Most patients with asthma can control their symptoms with a basic standard of medical care and with maintenance and rescue medication. However, between 5% and 10% of asthmatics worldwide do not achieve control of their symptoms and have recurrent exacerbations and respiratory difficulties. The objective of the study was the real-life evaluation of the clinical improvement of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with omalizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma being treated with omalizumab. Three types of response were evaluated: lower use of oral corticosteroids, improvement in lung function, and reduction in exacerbations. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were included, with a mean age of 48 ± 16 years. After 12 months had elapsed, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, use of oral cortico-steroids and doses of inhaled corticosteroids (p < 0.001). Lung function and asthma control improved significantly (p < 0.001; p = 0.004) and eosinophil levels were significantly reduced (p = 0.004). Low scores in the Asthma Control Test were associated with the oral corticosteroid-saving effect; lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were related to improvement in lung function, and prior FEV1 values higher than 80% and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with a reduction in exacerbations. The results of this study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of omalizumab and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to the treatment.

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.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe asthma: A real-world Dutch cohort study

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab as add-on treatment for severe uncontrolled asthma (SA) has shown to be effective and safe by phase-III-trials. Real-world data on clinical efficacy and safety is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of dupilumab as add-on therapy for SA in a real-world cohort.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The primary endpoint was annually exacerbation-rate (AER). Secondary outcomes were maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) dependency, asthma control (ACQ-5), pulmonary function (FEV₁), quality of life (AQLQ) and frequency of reported adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Overall, 148 patients were included. Median AER [IQR] reduced from 4.00 [2.00-5.00] at baseline to 1.00 [0.00-2.00] at 12 months (p < 0.001). mOCS-dependency reduced from 39.9% of the patients at baseline, to 20.3% at 6 months and to 14.9% at 12 months (p < 0.001). Median ACQ improved from 3.00 [2.00-3.80] at baseline to 1.80 [0.60-2.95] after 6 months and to 1.40 [0.20-2.60] after 12 months (p < 0.001). Median FEV₁ (L) improved from 2.21 [1.58-2.85] to 2.50 [2.00-3.06] at 6 months and to 2.51 [1.88-3.04] after 12 months (p < 0.001). The outcomes improved most in subgroups with high eosinophils (≥300/μL) or FeNO (≥50 ppb) at baseline. AEs were reported by 45.3% (67/148), of which headache was most frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that dupilumab as add-on therapy for SA is associated with significant improvements in exacerbation-rate, mOCS-dependency, asthma control, pulmonary function, and quality of life. These results are in line with those of previous phase-III-trials.

Criteria to evaluate efficacy of biologics in asthma: a Global Asthma Association survey

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no universally accepted criteria to measure the response to biologics available as treatment for severe asthma. This survey aims to establish consensus criteria to use for the evaluation of response to biologics after 4 months of treatment.

METHOD

Using Delphi methodology, a questionnaire including 10 items was validated by 13 international experts in asthma. The electronic survey circulated within the Interasma Scientific Network platform. For each item, five answers were proposed graduated from 'no importance' to 'very high importance' and by a score (A = 2 points; B = 4 points; C = 6 points; D = 8 points; E = 10 points). The final criteria were selected if the median score for the item was ≥7 and > 60% of responses according 'high importance' and 'very high importance'. All selected criteria were validated by the experts.

RESULTS

Four criteria were identified: reduce daily systemic corticosteroids dose by ≥50%; decrease the number of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids by ≥50%; have no/minimal side effects; and obtain asthma control according validated questionnaires. The consensual decision was that ≥3 criteria define a good response to biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific criteria were defined by an international panel of experts and could be used as tool in clinical practice.

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.

Immunologic Basis of Type 2 Biologics for Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory disease characterized by reversible airway obstruction and airway hyperreactivity to various environmental stimuli, leading to recurrent cough, dyspnea, and wheezing episodes. Regarding inflammatory mechanisms, type 2/eosinophilic inflammation along with activated mast cells is the major one; however, diverse mechanisms, including structural cells-derived and non-type 2/neutrophilic inflammations are involved, presenting heterogenous phenotypes. Although most asthmatic patients could be properly controlled by the guided treatment, patients with severe asthma (SA; classified as a treatment-refractory group) suffer from uncontrolled symptoms with frequent asthma exacerbations even on regular anti-inflammatory medications, raising needs for additional controllers, including biologics that target specific molecules found in asthmatic airway, and achieving the precision medicine for asthma. This review summarizes the immunologic basis of airway inflammatory mechanisms and current biologics for SA in order to address unmet needs for future targets.

Real-world effectiveness of omalizumab for severe allergic asthma treatment in Colombia

Background

The allergic phenotype is responsible for more than 50% of severe asthma cases. In a stepwise approach, add-on treatments such as anti-IgE are used for severe allergic asthma (SAA). This study was aimed to describe the real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in adult and pediatric patients with SAA in Colombia.

Methods

This was an observational, non-interventional, retrospective study. Data from patients with SAA that received at least one month of treatment with omalizumab was obtained from medical records at eight sites in Colombia. Time-zero (t − 0) was defined as the date of initiation of omalizumab, and data was gathered for a 12-month period before t − 0 and a 12-month period after t − 0. Clinical outcomes, including exacerbations, were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness of omalizumab was evaluated in terms of the reduction of the risk of exacerbations (annualized rate).

Results

We included 143 patients with SAA. There was a decrease of 72.4% of the annualized rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations during the year after omalizumab (from 1.74 before to 0.48 after) with a substantial reduction of the risk of exacerbations by 56.7% (RR [95% CI] 0.43 [0.30–0.63] p < 0,001).

Conclusion

The use of omalizumab in Colombia as a treatment for SAA notably reduced the risk of clinically significant exacerbations. This study is the first to evaluate omalizumab real-life effectiveness in pediatric and adult patients in the country.

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.