Can the response to Omalizumab be influenced by treatment duration? A real-life study

Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control.

SUMMARY

Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered.

Comparative efficacy and safety of the treatment by Omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria in the general population: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is the only licensed drug that serves as a third-line treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The optimum doses of omalizumab remain controversial. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four databases were searched from the database's creation to April 8, 2023. Several keywords such as omalizumab and urticarias were used to retrieve related studies. The meta-analytical outcomes were analyzed in R 4.2.1 software and Stata 15.1 software. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool Ver. 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

In total, 2331 patients were included. Five indexes were employed to assess, including weekly Itch Severity Score (ISS7), weekly Hive Severity Score (HSS7), weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse events (AE). A 300 mg dose of omalizumab was the optimum dose to treat CIU, followed by the 150 mg dose. Furthermore, 600 mg of omalizumab only showed a significant difference from the placebo in HSS7. No significant statistical difference was observed in AE. Meta-regression analysis revealed that time, as a covariate, was statistically significant in the comparison of omalizumab 150 mg with placebo.

CONCLUSION

300 mg of omalizumab was the optimum dosage to treat CIU patients, with a 150 mg dose also exhibiting good efficacy. Further studies are required to explore the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.

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.

Efficacy of Different Dosing Regimens of IgE Targeted Biologic Omalizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Adult and Pediatric Populations: A Meta-Analysis

Chronic urticaria is a debilitating skin condition that is defined as itchy hives at least twice a week and lasting for six or more weeks, with or without angioedema. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a form of disease that is witnessed in two-thirds of those with chronic urticaria. This meta-analysis explores the efficacy of differential dosages of omalizumab for outcomes of weekly itching scores, weekly wheal scores, urticarial assessment score 7 (UAS7), and responder rates. Adhering to PRISMA Statement 2020 guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted until 15 September 2022. A combination of the following keywords was used: omalizumab and chronic urticaria. Data comprising clinical trial ID, name, author/year, country, dosage and time of intervention, inclusion criteria, mean age, female gender, and racial grouping information were obtained. The meta-analytical outcomes were analyzed in RevMan 5.4. The risk-of-bias assessment was conducted using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). A total of 10 trials comprising 1705 patients with CSU were included. Notably, 1162 belonged to the intervention group, while 543 were controls. A total of 70.4% of the participants were female in the intervention group, while 65.6% of them were female in the control group. The overall mean age was 38.64 ± 10.66 years. Weekly itch score outcomes were most notable with 150 mg dosage (Cohen’s d = −2.6, 95% CI = −4.75, −0.46, p = 0.02). The weekly wheal score outcomes had the largest effect size with 300 mg dosage (Cohen’s d = −1.45, 95% CI = −2.2, −0.69, p = 0.0002). For UAS7 outcomes, the largest effect size was yielded with 150 mg dosage (Cohen’s d = −6.92, 95% CI: −10.38, −3.47, p < 0.0001). The response rate to omalizumab had a likelihood of being higher with 300 mg of intervention compared to placebo (OR = 8.65, 95% CI = 4.42, 16.93, p < 0.0001). Well-rounded urticarial symptom resolution was observed with 150 mg and 300 mg dosages of omalizumab. Improvement of UAS7 was more comparable with 150 mg dosage, whereas the chance of response to treatment was higher with 300 mg dosage. Our findings support omalizumab as an effective intervention for adult and pediatric populations that are resistant to many therapies, including high-dose H1-antihistamines.

Critical evaluation of asthma biomarkers in clinical practice

The advent of personalized medicine has revolutionized the whole approach to the management of asthma, representing the essential basis for future developments. The cornerstones of personalized medicine are the highest precision in diagnosis, individualized prediction of disease evolution, and patient-tailored treatment. To this aim, enormous efforts have been established to discover biomarkers able to predict patients' phenotypes according to clinical, functional, and bio-humoral traits. Biomarkers are objectively measured characteristics used as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or clinical responses to specific therapeutic interventions. The diagnosis of type-2 asthma, prediction of response to type-2 targeted treatments, and evaluation of the risk of exacerbation and lung function impairment have been associated with biomarkers detectable either in peripheral blood or in airway samples. The surrogate nature of serum biomarkers, set up to be less invasive than sputum analysis or bronchial biopsies, has shown several limits concerning their clinical applicability. Routinely used biomarkers, like peripheral eosinophilia, total IgE, or exhaled nitric oxide, result, even when combined, to be not completely satisfactory in segregating different type-2 asthma phenotypes, particularly in the context of severe asthma where the choice among different biologics is compelling. Moreover, the type-2 low fraction of patients is not only an orphan of biological treatments but is at risk of being misdiagnosed due to the low negative predictive value of type-2 high biomarkers. Sputum inflammatory cell analysis, considered the highest specific biomarker in discriminating eosinophilic inflammation in asthma, and therefore elected as the gold standard in clinical trials and research models, demonstrated many limits in clinical applicability. Many factors may influence the measure of these biomarkers, such as corticosteroid intake, comorbidities, and environmental exposures or habits. Not least, biomarkers variability over time is a confounding factor leading to wrong clinical choices. In this narrative review, we try to explore many aspects concerning the role of routinely used biomarkers in asthma, applying a critical view over the "state of the art" and contemporarily offering an overview of the most recent evidence in this field.

Advances and Challenges of Antibody Therapeutics for Severe Bronchial Asthma

Asthma is a disease that consists of three main components: airway inflammation, airway hyperresponsiveness, and airway remodeling. Persistent airway inflammation leads to the destruction and degeneration of normal airway tissues, resulting in thickening of the airway wall, decreased reversibility, and increased airway hyperresponsiveness. The progression of irreversible airway narrowing and the associated increase in airway hyperresponsiveness are major factors in severe asthma. This has led to the identification of effective pharmacological targets and the recognition of several biomarkers that enable a more personalized approach to asthma. However, the efficacies of current antibody therapeutics and biomarkers are still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. The establishment of an ideal phenotype classification that will predict the response of antibody treatment is urgently needed. Here, we review recent advancements in antibody therapeutics and novel findings related to the disease process for severe asthma.

Systematic Literature Review of Systemic Corticosteroid Use for Asthma Management

Systemic corticosteroid use to manage uncontrolled asthma and its associated healthcare burden may account for important health-related adverse effects. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the real-world extent and burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify English-language articles published in 2010–2017, using search terms for asthma with keywords for oral corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids. Observational studies, prescription database analyses, economic analyses, and surveys on oral/systemic corticosteroid use in children (>5 yr old), adolescents (12–17 yr old), and adults with asthma were included. We identified and reviewed 387 full-text articles, and our review included data from 139 studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. Overall, oral/systemic corticosteroids were commonly used for asthma management and were more frequently used in patients with severe asthma than in those with milder disease. Long-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use was, in general, less frequent than short-term use. Compared with no use, long-term and repeated short-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use were associated with an increased risk of acute and chronic adverse events, even when doses were comparatively low. Greater oral/systemic corticosteroid exposure was also associated with increased costs and healthcare resource use. This review provides a comprehensive overview of oral/systemic corticosteroid use and associated adverse events for patients with all degrees of asthma severity and exposure duration. We report that oral/systemic corticosteroid use is prevalent in asthma management, and the risks of acute and chronic complications increase with the cumulative oral corticosteroid dosage.

Mepolizumab effectiveness on small airway obstruction, corticosteroid sparing and maintenance therapy step-down in real life

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab (MEP) has been recently introduced to treat severe eosinophilic asthma. Trials have demonstrated a significant effectiveness in this asthma phenotype. We evaluated MEP efficacy on lung function, symptoms, asthma exacerbations, biologic markers, steroid dependence and controller treatment level in real-life.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 134 severe asthmatics (61 males; mean age 58.3 ± 11; mean FEV₁%:72 ± 21), treated with MEP for at least 6 months (mean duration:10.9 ± 3.7 months).

RESULTS

FEV₁% improved significantly after MEP. Mean FEF_25-75 also increased from 37.4 ± 25.4% to 47.2 ± 27.2% (p < 0.0001). Mean baseline blood eosinophil level was 712 ± 731/μL (8.4 ± 5.2%) decreasing to 151 ± 384/μL (1.6 ± 1.6%) (p < 0.0001), FENO levels decreased likewise. MEP treatment also led to a significant ACT improvement (mean pre:14.2 ± 4.4; mean post:20.5 ± 28) and exacerbations significantly fell from 3.8 ± 1.9 to 0.8 ± 1.1 (p < 0.0001). 74% of patients were steroid-dependent before MEP. 45.4% and 46.4% of them showed a suspension and dose reduction respectively (p < 0.0001). A significant number reduced also ICS doses. Only 67% of subjects used SABA as needed before MEP, falling to 20% after MEP. About 40% of patients highlighted a maintenance therapy step-down. Subjects showing an omalizumab treatment failure before MEP had a similar positive response when compared with omalizumab untreated patients.

CONCLUSION

In real-life, MEP improved significantly all outcomes even small airway obstruction, suggesting its possible role also in distal lung region treatment. Furthermore, it demonstrated its high effectiveness in OC/ICS-sparing, in reducing SABA as needed and in stepping-down maintenance therapy. MEP is a valid alternative for patients with previous omalizumab treatment failure.

Omalizumab and mepolizumab in the landscape of biological therapy for severe asthma in children: how to choose?

Severe asthma has a substantial epidemiological impact on children and biological treatments can be an option to take into account, as they target specific molecules and pathways involved in its pathogenesis. Modern medicine is continuously and progressively oriented towards tailored treatments designed specifically for the pathology patterns observed in individual patients and identified as endotypes with associated biomarkers. In this regard, biologic treatments in asthma are one of the best examples. Among the biological drugs currently available, omalizumab is the one with the greatest amount of data on efficacy and safety, and the one we have more real-life clinical experience with. However, mepolizumab will likely be accessible soon globally for clinical use. Moreover, research on biological drugs for the treatment of severe asthma is expanding rapidly, with some molecules currently used in adult patients that could be registered also for pediatric use and new molecules that could be available in the future. On the other hand, due to this potential abundance of therapeutic options, new criteria could become necessary to guide clinicians through an evidence-based choice between omalizumab and these new drugs. For the same reason, more data collected specifically from pediatric clinical trials are necessary. In this review we aim to analyze the factors that could help clinicians make their choice and to highlight the unmet need for a more evidence-based choice.

Appropriate use of oral corticosteroids for severe asthma

Severe asthma represents a significant burden of disease, particularly in high income nations; oral corticosteroids (OCS) remain an important part of the management toolkit for these patients. Corticosteroids are effective at targeting numerous elements of the type 2/eosinophilic inflammatory pathway and lead to both rapid reduction in eosinophilic inflammation and longer term reduction in airway hyper-responsiveness. Resistance or insensitivity to corticosteroids is a feature of severe asthma, with persistent type 2 inflammation often occurring despite regular use of OCS. OCS remain the only accepted, effective treatment for acute asthma, and also continue to play an important role in the long term management of severe asthma, in spite of their significant side effect profile. Even with the availability of the new biological therapies against IgE and interleukin-5, it is likely that a large proportion of patients will continue to require OCS to control their asthma. Future work should focus on optimising the balance between OCS efficacy and safety, and continued development of agents that allow reduction, or ideally discontinuation of their use, is needed.

Factors reducing omalizumab response in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Despite adding Omalizumab to conventional therapy, several severe asthmatics still show poor disease control. We investigated the factors that may affect a reduced Omalizumab response in a large population of severe asthmatics.

METHODS

340 patients were retrospectively evaluated. FEV₁%, FVC%, Asthma Control Test (ACT), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), possible step-downs/step-ups of concomitant therapies, exacerbations, disease control levels, ICS doses and SABA use, observed at the end of treatment, were considered as a response to Omalizumab.

RESULTS

Age was an independent risk factor for a reduced response concerning FEV₁%, FVC%, ACT and for a lower asthma control. Obesity (vs normal weight) was a determinant condition for exacerbations (OR:3.114[1.509-6.424], p = 0.002), for a disease partial/no control (OR:2.665[1.064-6.680], p = 0.036), for excessive SABA use (OR:4.448[1.837-10.768], p = 0.002) and for an unchanged/increased level of concomitant asthma medications. Furthermore, obesity also reduced the response in FEV₁ (β = -6.981,p = 0.04), FVC (β = -11.689,p = 0.014) and ACT (β = -2.585, p = 0.027) and was associated with a higher FENO level (β = 49.045,p = 0.040). Having at least one comorbidity was a risk factor for exacerbations (OR:1.383[1.128-1.697], p = 0.008) and for an ACT <20 (OR:2.410[1.071-3.690], p = 0.008). Specifically, chronic heart disease was associated with both a lower ACT and FVC% whereas gastroesophageal reflux with a partial/no asthma control. Nasal polyps were a predisposing factor leading both to exacerbations and to the use of higher inhaled corticosteroids doses. Moreover, smoking habits, pollen or dog/cat dander co-sensitizations may negatively influence Omalizumab response.

CONCLUSION

Age, obesity, comorbidities, smoking habits, nasal polyps, allergic poly-sensitization might reduce Omalizumab effectiveness independently to other asthma-influencing factors.

"Real-life" Efficacy and Safety Aspects of 4-Year Omalizumab Treatment for Asthma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in asthma in a real-life setting.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This 4-year observational study included 65 patients treated with omalizumab during clinic visits; treatment response was rated as excellent, good, and partial based on a modified physician's Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (mGETE) scale of emergency room visits (ERV), hospitalization, use of oral corticosteroids, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β-agonist (LABA) dose, and short-acting β-agonist rescue. The following tests were done: forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and the asthma control test (ACT). Measurements were performed 1 month before therapy and at 16 weeks, 1 year, and 4 years of treatment. Statistical analyses were done using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman rank correlation, and McNemar χ2 test.

RESULTS

The dropout rate was 15 (18.5%): 8 nonresponders (10.0%); 2 patients died (2.5%), and 5 were lost to follow-up (6.25%). Treatment response was excellent in 35 (53.8%); good in 23 (35.4%), and partial in 7 patients (10.8%). The number of excellent responders increased from 35 (53.8%) at 16 weeks to 48 (73.8%) at the 4-year follow-up. The number of patients who did not require ERV improved from 0 to 59 (90.8%), and the lowest rate of hospitalization was 1 in year 4 (p < 0.001); patients who did not require courses of oral corticosteroids improved from 0 to 54 (83%). ICS/LABA dose significantly reduced from 65 (100%) to 25 (38.5%) after 4 years of treatment (p < 0.001); ACT scores significantly increased from 15 ± 3 at baseline to 23 ± 3 (p < 0.001) and FEV1 level from 55.6 ± 10.6 to 76.63 ± 10.34 at year 4.

CONCLUSION

In this study, omalizumab therapy resulted in better asthma control, and was effective and well tolerated as an add-on therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.