Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in severe asthma: An indirect treatment comparison

Comparison of the Efficacy of Omalizumab and Mepolizumab in Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease

INTRODUCTION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is heterogeneous in both phenotypes and endotypes. Due to insufficient head-to-head comparison studies, it is hard to decide which biological to initiate. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of omalizumab and mepolizumab which can be used in the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma diagnosed with N-ERD.

METHODS

The population of this observational, cross-sectional study comprised of N-ERD patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 6 months for severe asthma. Outcomes included the asthma control test (ACT), and sino-nasal outcome test scores (SNOT-22), blood eosinophil counts at initiation of biological treatment (T0, baseline) and at the end of 6th months (T6). Adverse effects related to biological treatment and changes of oral corticosteroids dose was recorded.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 22 patients, of whom 11 received mepolizumab and 11 received omalizumab. The change in ACT, SNOT-22, eosinophil counts, and adverse effects related to biologicals were similar at T6 (p = 0.606, p = 0.168, p = 0.05, p = 0.053, respectively). However, when examining the SNOT-22 and ACT based on the cumulative distribution curve (SUCRA), mepolizumab (SUCRA value: 0.61, 0.72, respectively) demonstrated greater efficacy compared to omalizumab (SUCRA value: 0.19, 0.35, respectively). The oral corticosteroids discontinuation rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We found both omalizumab and mepolizumab to be effective in treatment; however, we determined that mepolizumab may have a potential superiority in efficacy.

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

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of respiratory biologics remains sparse.

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Comparison of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacy in patients with atopic and eosinophilic "Overlap" severe asthma: Biological agent preference in atopic-eosinophilic severe asthma

Approximately 1-third of patients with severe asthma are candidates for both omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment. We aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric and inflammatory efficacy of these 2 biologics in atopic and eosinophilic "overlap" severe asthma patients. In our 3-center retrospective cross-sectional observational study, the data of patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 16 weeks to treat severe asthma were examined. Atopic (perennial allergen sensitivity and total IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL) and eosinophilic (blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL in admission; or ≥300 cells/µL in the previous year) patients with asthma suitable for both biologics were included in the study. Post-treatment changes in the asthma control test (ACT) score, number of attacks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and eosinophil count were compared. The rates of any biological responder patient were compared according to whether they had high eosinophil counts (≥500 cells/µL vs <500 cells/µL). Total of 181 patients data were evaluated, of the 74 atopic and eosinophilic overlap patients included in the study, 56 were receiving omalizumab and 18 were receiving mepolizumab. When omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacies were compared, there was no difference in terms of the reduction in attacks and improvement in ACT. The decrease in eosinophil levels in patients in the mepolizumab arm was significantly higher than that in patients in the omalizumab arm (46.3% vs 87.8%; P < .001). The improvement in FEV1 was greater with mepolizumab treatment, although the difference was not significant (215 mL vs 380 mL; P = .053). It has been shown that having high eosinophil counts does not affect the clinical and spirometric responder patient rates for either biological condition. The success of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment is similar in patients with atopic and eosinophilic overlap with severe asthma. However, because the baseline patient inclusion criteria are not compatible, head-to-head studies comparing both biological agents are required.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

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

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

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

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

Biologics for chronic severe asthma: a network meta‐analysis

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

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

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

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

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparing hospital admissions, comorbidities and biomarkers between severe asthma and Gold III-IV COPD

INTRODUCTION

In spite of difficulties in differentiating asthma from COPD, physicians should strive for accurate diagnosis because outcomes may be different.

OBJECTIVES

Our aims were to compare the frequency of hospital admissions (HA) between severe asthmatic (SA) and Gold III-IV COPD subjects receiving disease specific guideline recommended therapy, depict the frequency of prevalent chronic disorders and the laboratorial profile suggesting allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study comprises one group of SA subjects and another group of Gold III-IV COPD subjects. Subjects answered standard questionnaires, underwent spirometry and provided a peripheral blood sample. We validated the HA that have occurred during the preceding year by review of the report emitted by the hospital. We detected comorbidities by review of current pharmacological therapies.

RESULTS

We enrolled 160 SA and 41 Gold III-IV COPD subjects. As compared with Gold III-IV COPD subjects, SA subjects had lower odds of HA (OR 0.19, 95CI 0.05-0.74) and higher odds of obesity (OR 9.17, 95CI 2.68-31.37), hypertension (OR 2.54, 95CI 1.16-5.57) and diabetes mellitus (OR 5.71, 95CI 1.56-20.85). The frequency of atopic and eosinophilic phenotypes were similar between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that Gold III-IV COPD subjects had worse outcomes as compared to SA subjects. We also observed that the frequency of atopy and high peripheral-blood eosinophil count were similar between study groups. Finally, we exposed aspects of comorbidities related to asthma and COPD that indicate the need of close monitoring the cardiovascular risk in SA subjects above 40 years of age.

Effectiveness of Switching Biologics for Severe Asthma Patients in Japan: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In Japan, biologic therapy was initiated for patients with severe asthma in 2009. In recent years, four biologics with different mechanisms of action have become available in the clinical setting. However, the efficacy of switching between biologics remains uncertain.

METHODS

To elucidate the efficacy of switching between biologics, 97 patients were enrolled who had received any biologic therapy for severe asthma at Jikei University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, from July 2009 to December 2020. We retrospectively examined the patient characteristics, biomarkers, pulmonary function test results, selected biologics, and efficacy.

RESULTS

Thirty-one males and 66 females received any biologics. The mean age was 53.3 years at the initiation of biologic therapy. Initially, 33, 41, 15 and eight patients received omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, respectively. Among three representative indicators for biologics administration, the peripheral blood eosinophil count, serum IgE levels and fractional exhaled nitric oxide, 64% of the patients had two indicators, and 28% had three indicators. Thirty-four patients (35%) switched from the initial biologic to another, and the reasons for switching included persistent asthmatic symptoms (n=22), schedule of hospital visits (n=5), and other reasons. Thus, the treatment was effective in 11 patients after switching. In addition, two patients received combination therapy with different biologics. Eighteen patients (19%) interrupted treatment for various reasons. Regardless of whether the biologic was the initial therapy, the overall efficacy of the four biologics was 60% based on the global evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Switching between biologics can be a promising option for severe asthma patients in whom treatment with an initial biologic is ineffective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain

AIM

To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting.

Anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of asthma: an update

INTRODUCTION

Asthma exhibits marked heterogeneity in symptoms with severe or refractory asthma representing a clear area of unmet medical need. These patients require more specifically targeted treatments with monoclonal antibody-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 having considerable potential as effective treatments for severe asthma. For the most part, anti-cytokine-based biologic therapies are more likely to give significant clinical benefit in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account.

AREAS COVERED

This review is based on recent English-language original articles in Pub Med or MedLine that reported significant clinical findings on the current status, therapeutic potential and safety of the anti-IL-5 biologics mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab in the treatment of severe refractory asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-IL-5 treatment appears effective in patients with eosinophilic asthma through exacerbation prevention with accumulating evidence of glucocorticoid-sparing effects with an acceptable safety profile for these biologics.

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

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

A comparison of biologicals in the treatment of adults with severe asthma - real-life experiences

BACKGROUND

Anti-IgE (omalizumab) and anti-IL5/IL5R (reslizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab) treatments are available for severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma. In these patients, studies have shown beneficial effects in oral corticosteroid use and exacerbations. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the effect of biological therapy on severe asthma and to compare different therapies.

METHODS

We collected and analysed results of anti-IL5/IL5R and anti-IgE therapies for asthma from January 2009 until October 2019 in specialized care. We compared number of exacerbations, asthma symptoms and use of per oral corticosteroids and antimicrobics because of asthma before and during biological therapy, and in a separate analysis need for per oral corticosteroids, antimicrobics or surgery due to upper respiratory tract diseases in asthmatics receiving biologicals. The analyses were done using the Chi square test, T-test or Mann-Whitney U -test, the Kruskall-Wallis test or the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Of 64 patients, 40 used continuous per oral corticosteroid therapy prior to biological therapy. The mean daily dose of per oral corticosteroid was reduced in those with anti-IL5/IL5R therapy (- 3.0 mg, p = 0.02). The number of annual per oral corticosteroid courses decreased in both the anti-IL5/IL5R (- 2.8 courses, p < 0.05) and anti-IgE groups (- 1.3 courses, p < 0.05). The number of annual antibiotic courses (- 0.7 courses, p = 0.04) and total number of exacerbation events (- 4.4 events/year, p < 0.05) were reduced in the anti-IL5/IL5R group. In the 55 asthma patients analysed for upper respiratory tract findings, the results suggested a reduction in need for chronic rhinosinusitis surgery during biological therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Results with biological therapies in this real-life clinical setting are comparable to those reported in clinical trials. Biological therapy reduces exacerbations and per oral corticosteroid use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04158050, retrospectively registered 6.11.2019.

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.

Biological therapy-associated adverse reactions in asthma: analysis of reporting to the Portuguese pharmacovigilance system

Objectives: Biological drugs have been successfully tested in asthma, especially in the most severe forms of the disease. The goal of this study was to characterize the safety profile of biologicals used in asthma.Methods: Retrospective and descriptive analysis of spontaneous reports (SRs) involving omalizumab and mepolizumab, sent to the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System, since market launch until October 2018.Results: A total of 127 SRs for omalizumab and 10 SRs mepolizumab were found. Most patients were female (75.6% omalizumab and 90.0% mepolizumab), and aged 18-64 years (61.4% and 50.0%, respectively). 71.7% of the reports for omalizumab were serious, with 2 cases of anaphylaxis, 12 malignant neoplasms and 2 abortions. Only 20.0% of the reports for mepolizumab were considered serious. A total of 391 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for omalizumab and 20 ADRs for mepolizumab were found. Most reported ADRs belonged to System organ class (SOC) groups: 'respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders' and 'investigations', for omalizumab; 'musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders' and 'general disorders and administration site conditions' for mepolizumab.Conclusion: Over the years, there was an increasing trend of SRs with these biological drugs. However, it is necessary to continue to develop educational programs in order to get a better reporting system.

An evaluation of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe asthma

Introduction: Asthma is considered one of the most common chronic conditions globally, characterized by variable airflow obstruction and symptoms. Severe asthma is diagnosed when asthma control requires high-intensity therapy or continues to remain uncontrolled despite treatment. Eosinophilic inflammation is known to be perpetuated by the activity of IL-5 in a proportion of severe asthma subjects, and targeting IL-5 may offer a therapeutic option. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role and pathogenesis of IL-5 and eosinophils in asthma and rationale of antagonizing IL-5 in severe eosinophilic asthma. Mepolizumab is the first of three anti-IL-5 biologics licensed in 2015 for use in this subgroup of patients. We discuss clinical and real-life studies leading up to its approval and post-marketing outcomes in terms of efficacy and safety to-date, as well as its pros and cons. Expert opinion: IL-5 antagonism has paved the way for an additional personalized therapeutic opportunity for use in severe asthma with eosinophilic inflammation, though there is limited evidence on the long-term implications of suppressing/depleting eosinophils and the duration for which they should be administered.

Real-world characteristics and disease burden of patients with asthma prior to treatment initiation with mepolizumab or omalizumab: a retrospective cohort database study

Purpose

Patients with severe asthma are eligible for asthma-specific biologics as add-on therapies, such as mepolizumab and omalizumab, when optimized controller therapies are unable to control their symptoms. However, few real-world data are available to describe the characteristics and associated economic burden of patients considered to be candidates for mepolizumab or omalizumab therapy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study investigated patients with asthma (≥12 years of age) identified at the time of first mepolizumab or omalizumab administration (index date) in the MarketScan^™ Commercial Database. Data were collected during the 12-month period before the index date (baseline period) for two mutually exclusive patient groups (patients prescribed mepolizumab and omalizumab, respectively). Baseline demographics, history of exacerbations, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and medical costs were investigated.

Results

In total, 413 and 1,834 patients who had been prescribed mepolizumab or omalizumab, respectively, were identified. During the baseline period, patients prescribed mepolizumab experienced more exacerbations (81.4% vs 57.5%, P<0.001), had higher asthma-related HCRU for outpatient services (all P<0.01), and had higher total asthma-related healthcare costs (US$11,000 vs US$7,400, P<0.001) compared with patients prescribed omalizumab. Allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and chronic idiopathic urticaria were more common among patients prescribed omalizumab vs mepolizumab. In contrast, sinusitis, nasal polyps, and comorbid COPD were more common among patients prescribed mepolizumab vs omalizumab. Prescriptions of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and ICS/LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist triple therapy during the baseline period were higher among patients prescribed mepolizumab vs omalizumab (80.4% vs 56.8% and 27.1% vs 14.4%, respectively, both P<0.001).

Conclusion

In the 12 months prior to initiation of asthma-specific biologics, patients prescribed mepolizumab had a different prevalence of certain comorbidities, higher disease burden, higher HCRU, and higher healthcare costs compared with patients prescribed omalizumab.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of benralizumab versus interleukin-5 inhibitors for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review

Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor α-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that directly depletes eosinophils. Its relative efficacy versus other IL-5-targeted treatments for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma is not yet fully characterised.

We performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of benralizumab versus mepolizumab and reslizumab. Trials were selected through systematic review and evaluation of trial methods. Benralizumab patient-level data were weighted to match treatment-effect-modifying patient characteristics of comparator trials before indirect efficacy comparisons.

After matching adjustment, benralizumab and mepolizumab reduced exacerbations versus placebo by 52% and 49%, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.78–1.13; n=1524) and reduced the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit by 52% and 52%, respectively (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57–1.75; n=1524). Benralizumab and mepolizumab similarly improved pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s at 32 weeks (difference 0.03 L, 95% CI −0.06–0.12; n=1443). Benralizumab and reslizumab patient populations were too dissimilar to generate a sufficient effective sample size to produce a reliable estimate for MAIC.

MAIC is a robust way to indirectly compare treatment efficacies from trials with heterogeneous patient populations. When baseline patient characteristics were matched across asthma trials, benralizumab and mepolizumab yielded similar efficacy.

In an indirect treatment comparison with matched populations, benralizumab and mepolizumab had comparable efficacyhttp://ow.ly/e5kC30md39F

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis successfully treated with mepolizumab: Case report and review of the literature

A 56-year-old woman was referred to our hospital for recurrent asthma of 20 years duration. She was diagnosed as having allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis on the basis of clinical symptoms, peripheral blood eosinophilia, elevated total serum immunoglobulin E value, positive results of specific IgE and precipitating antibodies against Aspergillus sp., central bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction. Systemic corticosteroids and anti-fungal therapy improved her symptoms, but the cessation of these treatments led to frequent exacerbations. Omalizumab improved her asthmatic symptoms to the point that corticosteroids could be stopped; however, radiological findings were not improved, and coexisting eosinophilic sinusitis and otitis media worsened. After her treatment was changed from omalizumab to mepolizumab, not only her asthmatic symptoms but also her sinusitis and otitis media became well controlled, and chest radiological findings improved.

Immunological and hematological effects of IL-5(Rα)-targeted therapy: An overview

IL‐5 is an important cytokine for priming and survival of mature eosinophils and for proliferation and maturation of their progenitors. Hence, IL‐5(Rα) targeting will be increasingly used in diseases where eosinophils are the key immune effector cells such as eosinophilic asthma (EA), hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic esophagitis (EE), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Therefore, several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies directed against IL‐5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab) and its receptor IL‐5Rα (benralizumab) have found or will find their way to the clinic. While the clinical effect of these drugs has been extensively investigated and reviewed, the understanding of the underlying immunological and hematological mechanisms remains less clear. This review will discuss the translational outcomes of treatment with these monoclonal antibodies in humans to shed light on the mechanisms underlying the main immunological and hematological findings from these clinical trials in humans.

Recent developments in the use of biologics targeting IL-5, IL-4, or IL-13 in severe refractory asthma

INTRODUCTION

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life and health-care cost implications. Asthma exhibits marked heterogeneity both clinically and at the molecular phenotypic level requiring specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 have considerable potential as effective treatments for severe asthma. Areas covered: This review is based on recent English-language original articles in PubMed or Medline that reported significant clinical findings on the current status, therapeutic potential, and safety of biologics targeted at IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 in the treatment of asthma together with the potential utility of simple reproducible non-invasive biomarkers to guide the effective use of biologic-based therapy that do not require direct sampling of the airways Expert commentary: The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory non-invasive biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

Controversies and opportunities in severe asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite currently available treatments, many asthma patients remain inadequately controlled, but identifying distinct patient populations (phenotypes/endotypes) may optimize their management. This review discusses some of the controversies and opportunities for improved disease control in severe asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently approved anti-immunoglobulin E and anti-interleukin 5 biologics, which target specific pathways instead of using a 'one size fits all' strategy, are efficacious and well tolerated therapies for severe asthma. The appropriate use of these biologics, and of those in development (e.g., benralizumab and dupilumab), should be aided by further understanding of asthma phenotypes and endotypes, utilizing appropriate biomarkers.Oral corticosteroids are often added as maintenance therapy for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, but their use is associated with significant adverse effects and should be considered a last option. The true cost of this therapy, including the cost of morbidities associated with its use, remains to be determined.Severe asthma in pediatrics poses a unique opportunity for possible prevention strategies and the potential for primary prevention. Although several avenues for primary prevention are being explored and are out of the scope of this review, we focus our discussion on the use of omalizumab, which has been recently explored in clinical trials.

SUMMARY

Appropriate use of biologics in severe asthma should be supported by further understanding of biomarkers predicting response to targeted therapy. Because of their association with significant adverse effects, add-on oral corticosteroids should be considered a last treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. Finally, severe asthma in pediatrics poses a unique opportunity for potential prevention strategies.

EMAPII Monoclonal Antibody Ameliorates Influenza A Virus-Induced Lung Injury

Influenza A virus (IAV) remains a major worldwide health threat, especially to high-risk populations, including the young and elderly. There is an unmet clinical need for therapy that will protect the lungs from damage caused by lower respiratory infection. Here, we analyzed the role of EMAPII, a stress- and virus-induced pro-inflammatory and pro-apoptotic factor, in IAV-induced lung injury. First, we demonstrated that IAV induces EMAPII surface translocation, release, and apoptosis in cultured endothelial and epithelial cells. Next, we showed that IAV induces EMAPII surface translocation and release to bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) in mouse lungs, concomitant with increases in caspase 3 activity. Injection of monoclonal antibody (mAb) against EMAPII attenuated IAV-induced EMAPII levels, weight loss, reduction of blood oxygenation, lung edema, and increase of the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF alpha. In accordance with the pro-apoptotic properties of EMAPII, levels of caspase 3 activity in BALF were also decreased by mAb treatment. Moreover, we detected EMAPII mAb-induced increase in lung levels of M2-like macrophage markers YM1 and CD206. All together, these data strongly suggest that EMAPII mAb ameliorates IAV-induced lung injury by limiting lung cell apoptosis and shifting the host inflammatory setting toward resolution of inflammation.

ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies: an infectious diseases perspective (Soluble immune effector molecules [II]: agents targeting interleukins, immunoglobulins and complement factors)

BACKGROUND

The present review is part of the ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies.

AIMS

To review, from an Infectious Diseases perspective, the safety profile of agents targeting interleukins, immunoglobulins and complement factors and to suggest preventive recommendations.

SOURCES

Computer-based MEDLINE searches with MeSH terms pertaining to each agent or therapeutic family.

CONTENT

Patients receiving interleukin-1 (IL-1) -targeted (anakinra, canakinumab or rilonacept) or IL-5-targeted (mepolizumab) agents have a moderate risk of infection and no specific prevention strategies are recommended. The use of IL-6/IL-6 receptor-targeted agents (tocilizumab and siltuximab) is associated with a risk increase similar to that observed with anti-tumour necrosis factor-α agents. IL-12/23-targeted agents (ustekinumab) do not seem to pose a meaningful risk of infection, although screening for latent tuberculosis infection may be considered and antiviral prophylaxis should be given to hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients. Therapy with IL-17-targeted agents (secukinumab, brodalumab and ixekizumab) may result in the development of mild-to-moderate mucocutaneous candidiasis. Pre-treatment screening for Strongyloides stercoralis and other geohelminths should be considered in patients who come from areas where these are endemic who are receiving IgE-targeted agents (omalizumab). C5-targeted agents (eculizumab) are associated with a markedly increased risk of infection due to encapsulated bacteria, particularly Neisseria spp. Meningococcal vaccination and chemoprophylaxis must be administered 2-4 weeks before initiating eculizumab. Patients with high-risk behaviours and their partners should also be screened for gonococcal infection.

IMPLICATIONS

Preventive strategies are particularly encouraged to minimize the occurrence of neisserial infection associated with eculizumab.

Biologics for asthma and allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The development of monoclonal antibody-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the Th2 cytokines interleukin-4, interleukin-5 and interleukin-13 represent potentially effective treatments for asthma and allergic diseases. This short review is based on English-language original articles in PubMed or MedLine that reported significant clinical findings on the evidence demonstrating the effectiveness or otherwise of the targeting of interleukin-4, interleukin-5 or interleukin-13 in asthma or allergic disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Asthma exhibits marked heterogeneity both clinically and at the molecular phenotypic level requiring specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. It is becoming apparent that significant clinical effects with anticytokine-based biologic therapies are more likely in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes into account. Biologics aimed at interleukin-4/13, interleukin-5 or immunoglobulin E are potentially effective treatments for patients with difficult to treat allergic disease. The development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these expensive interventions.

SUMMARY

Overall these biologics-based therapies are effective treatments for difficult to treat asthma and allergic disease with a safety profile comparable with placebo in the majority of published studies.

Severe eosinophilic asthma: from the pathogenic role of interleukin-5 to the therapeutic action of mepolizumab

Mepolizumab is an anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) humanized monoclonal antibody that has been recently approved as an add-on biological treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma, by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Moreover, mepolizumab is also currently included within the step 5 of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, as an add-on therapy for severe uncontrolled asthma. The relevant therapeutic benefits detectable in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma receiving mepolizumab depend on the pivotal pathogenic role played by IL-5 in these subjects. Indeed, IL-5 is the key cytokine responsible for maturation, activation, proliferation, and survival of eosinophils. Therefore, IL-5 represents a strategic molecular target for anti-eosinophilic treatments. By selectively inhibiting the biological actions of IL-5, mepolizumab provides a valuable therapeutic option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, refractory to standard treatments including inhaled and even systemic corticosteroids. In particular, the very important advantages linked to the use of mepolizumab in these difficult-to-treat asthmatic individuals have been well documented by several different trials performed worldwide.