Impact of Initiating Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma on Long-Term Oral Corticosteroids or Frequent Rescue Steroids (GLITTER): Data From the International Severe Asthma Registry

Disease Burden and Access to Biologic Therapy in Patients with Severe Asthma, 2017-2022: An Analysis of the International Severe Asthma Registry

Introduction

Patients with severe asthma may be prescribed biologic therapies to improve disease control. The EVEREST study aimed to characterize the global disease burden of patients with severe asthma without access to biologics and those who have access but do not receive biologics, as well as the remaining unmet need despite use of these therapies.

Methods

This was a historical cohort study of patients with severe asthma (aged ≥18 years) in the International Severe Asthma Registry receiving Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2018 step 5 treatment, or with uncontrolled disease at GINA step 4. Prospective data on patient clinical characteristics, healthcare resource utilization, and medication use over a 12-month period between December 2017 and May 2022 were assessed for the following five groups: biologics accessible (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, or dupilumab); biologics inaccessible; biologics accessible but not received; biologics accessible and received; and biologic recipients whose asthma remained suboptimally controlled.

Results

Overall, 9587 patients from 21 countries were included. Among patients in the biologics accessible (n=5073), biologics inaccessible (n=3041), and biologics accessible but not received (n=382) groups, 41.4%, 18.7%, and 49.6% experienced at least two exacerbations, 11.5%, 10.5%, and 6.2% required at least one hospitalization, 47.9%, 54.6%, and 71.2% had uncontrolled asthma, and 23.9%, 8.6%, and 11.0% received long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS), respectively. Following biologic therapy, among patients who received biologics overall (n=2666) and among those whose asthma remained suboptimally controlled (n=1780), 19.1% and 23.0% experienced at least two exacerbations, 2.7% and 2.9% required at least one hospitalization, and 16.7% and 22.0% received LTOCS, respectively.

Conclusion

There is a substantial disease burden in both patients without access to biologics and those with access who do not receive these therapies, although specific outcomes may vary between these groups. There also remains a high unmet need among biologic recipients, many of whom have a suboptimal response to treatment.

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.

Expert consensus on oral corticosteroids stewardship for the treatment of severe asthma in the Middle East and Africa

In the Middle East and Africa (MEA) region, overuse of oral corticosteroids (OCS) for asthma management, both as burst and maintenance therapy, poses a significant challenge. Gaps in knowledge regarding the need to taper OCS in patients with severe asthma and the use of OCS in comorbid conditions have been noted. OCS stewardship can help attain optimal and effective OCS tapering along with reducing OCS overuse and over-reliance. In this paper, we discuss current practices regarding the use of OCS in asthma, globally and in the MEA region. Expert recommendations for achieving OCS stewardship in the MEA region have also been presented. Regional experts recommend increasing awareness among patients about the consequences of OCS overuse, engaging community pharmacists, and educating primary healthcare professionals about the benefits of prompt appropriate referral. Innovative local referral tools like ReferID can be utilized to refer patients with asthma to specialist care. The experts also endorse a multidisciplinary team approach and accelerating access to newer medicines like biologics to implement OCS stewardship and optimize asthma care in the MEA region.

Unlocking the Long-Term Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Three-Year Real-Life Study

Background: Benralizumab has been shown to restore good control of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Robust data on benralizumab effectiveness over periods longer than 2 years are scarce. Methods: This retrospective multicentric study was conducted on 108 Italian SEA patients treated with benralizumab for up to 36 months. Partial and complete clinical remission (CR) were assessed. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics or using linear, logistic, and negative binomial mixed-effect regression models. Results: At 36 months, benralizumab reduced the exacerbation rate by 89% and increased the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (+440 mL at 36 months, p < 0.0001). Benralizumab improved asthma control as well as sinonasal symptoms in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Up to 93.33% of patients either reduced or discontinued OCS; benralizumab also decreased ICS use and other asthma medications. Overall, 84.31% of patients achieved partial or complete CR. Conclusions: Benralizumab improved asthma and sinonasal outcomes up to 36 months. These findings support the potential of benralizumab to induce CR, emphasizing its role as a disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drug for the management of SEA. Further research is warranted to expand these findings by minimizing data loss and assessing benralizumab's long-term safety.

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).

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

Pulmonology for the rhinologist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The upper and lower airways are inter-related despite serving different functions and can no longer be considered separately. Rhinologists are becoming increasingly aware of the role the lower airway plays in optimizing outcomes for their patients. This review highlights recent developments in pulmonology that impact rhinologic conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The unified airway concept now supports the multidisciplinary management of respiratory and rhinologic pathologies. Biomarkers, biologics and the concept of treatable traits have permitted the development of personalized and precise treatment of the entire respiratory tract. The concept of corticosteroid stewardship, the introduction of steroid sparing agents for the treatment of respiratory diseases and the development of biomarkers, now forces us to be more considerate and precise with oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescribing and to consider reduction regimens. Finally, current research on climate change and vaping will allow us to better educate and prepare our patients to improve adherence and avoid exacerbations to maintain optimal global respiratory health.

SUMMARY

The inter-relatedness of the upper and lower airway has encouraged a multidisciplinary focus in respiratory medicine. More research is required to improve the precision respiratory medicine model, particularly in the realm of biomarkers and endotyping. These developments must also consider the impact of climate change, pollution and toxins for us to provide optimum care for our patients.

Effects of biological therapies on patients with Type-2 high asthma and comorbid obesity

Over 20 million adults and 6 million children in the United States (US) have asthma, a chronic respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchoconstriction, and mucus hypersecretion. Obesity, another highly prevalent disease in the US, is a major risk factor for asthma and a significant cause of diminished asthma control, increased submucosal eosinophilia, and reduced quality of life. A large subgroup of these patients experiences severe symptoms and recurrent exacerbations despite maximal dosage of standard asthma therapies. In the past two decades, the development of biological therapies has revolutionized the field and advanced our understanding of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers. However, patients with obesity and comorbid asthma are not principally considered in clinical trials of biologics. Large landmark cluster analyses of patients with asthma have consistently identified specific asthma phenotypes that associate with obesity but may be differentiated by age of asthma onset and inflammatory cell profiles in sputum. These patterns suggest that biologic processes driving asthma pathology are heterogenous among patients with obesity. The biological mechanisms driving pathology in patients with asthma and comorbid obesity are not well understood and likely multifactorial. Future research needs to be done to elicit the cellular and metabolic functions in the relationship of obesity and asthma to yield the best treatment options for this multiplex condition. In this review, we explore the key features of type 2 inflammation in asthma and discuss the effectiveness, safety profile, and research gaps regarding the currently approved biological therapies in asthma patients with obesity.

Immunogenicity of biologics used in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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