Long-term "real-life" safety of omalizumab in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma: A nine-year study

Clinical characteristics of complete responders versus non-complete responders to omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma: a long-term retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Some patients with severe asthma may benefit from treatment with biologics, but evidence has been mostly collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients' characteristics are different from those encountered in asthma patients in the real-world setting. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of complete responders versus non-complete responders to long-term treatment with biologics in patients with severe asthma attended in routine daily practice.

METHODS

Data of a cohort of 90 patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for at least 12 months and were followed up to March 2022. Data recorded included clinical characteristics and effectiveness of treatment (exacerbation, Asthma Control Test [ACT] score, lung function, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]), FeNO, and blood eosinophils at baseline, at 12 months, and at the end of follow-up. Complete response is considered if, in addition to not presenting exacerbations or the use of mOCS, the ACT score was >20 and, the FEV1 >80% predicted.

RESULTS

An improvement in all asthma control parameters was observed after 12 months of treatment and a mean follow-up of 55 months. After 12 months of treatment 27.2% of patients met the criteria of complete response and this percentage even increased to 35.3% at the end of follow-up. Long-term complete response was associated to better lung function with mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment and to less previous exacerbations in the benralizumab group. The main cause of not achieving a complete response was the persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab improved the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs in the long term follow-up. Airflow obstruction, however, was a predictor of a non-complete response to biologics.

Chronic urticaria: unmet needs, emerging drugs, and new perspectives on personalised treatment

Chronic urticaria is a common and debilitating mast cell-driven skin disease presenting with itchy wheals, angio-oedema, or both. Chronic urticaria is classified as spontaneous (without definite triggers) and inducible (with definite and subtype-specific triggers; eg, cold or pressure). Current management guidelines recommend step-up administration of second-generation H1-antihistamines to four-fold the approved dose, followed by omalizumab and ciclosporin. However, in many patients, chronic urticaria does not respond to this linear approach due to heterogeneous underlying mechanisms. A personalised endotype-based approach is emerging based on the identification of autoantibodies and other drivers of urticaria pathogenesis. Over the past decade, clinical trials have presented promising options for targeted treatment of chronic urticaria with the potential for disease modification, including Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anti-cytokine therapies, and mast cell depletion. This Therapeutics article focuses on the evidence for these novel drugs and their role in addressing an unmet need for personalised management of patients with chronic urticaria.

Type 2 severe asthma: pathophysiology and treatment with biologics

INTRODUCTION

The hallmark of most patients with severe asthma is type 2 inflammation, driven by innate and adaptive immune responses leading to either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic infiltration of airways. The cellular and molecular pathways underlying severe type 2 asthma can be successfully targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies.

AREAS COVERED

This review article provides a concise overview of the pathophysiology of type 2 asthma, followed by an updated appraisal of the mechanisms of action and therapeutic efficacy of currently available biologic treatments used for management of severe type 2 asthma. Therefore, all reported information arises from a wide literature search performed on PubMed.

EXPERT OPINION

The main result of the recent advances in the field of anti-asthma biologic therapies is the implementation of a personalized medicine approach, aimed to achieve clinical remission of severe asthma. Today this accomplishment is made possible by the right choice of the most beneficial biologic drug for the pathologic traits characterizing each patient, including type 2 severe asthma and its comorbidities.

Evaluating the Toxocara cati extract as a therapeutic agent for allergic airway inflammation

BACKGROUND

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that early life exposure to helminth infections can reduce hypersensitivity in the immune system.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to evaluate the effects of Toxocara cati (T. cati) somatic products on allergic airway inflammation.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2020, T. cati adult worms were collected from stray cats in Mashhad, Iran (31 out of 186 cats), and their somatic extract was collected. Thirty BALB/c mice were equally divided into three groups, including the OVA group (sensitized and challenged with ovalbumin), the somatic administered group (received somatic extract along with ovalbumin sensitization), and the PBS group (sensitized and challenged with phosphate buffer saline). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was collected to assess the number of cells, and lung homogenates were prepared for cytokine analysis. Histopathological analysis of the lungs was performed, and inflammatory cells and mucus were detected. Cytokine levels (IL-4, IL-5, IL-10) were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and ovalbumin-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were determined using a capture ELISA.

RESULTS

The somatic group significantly decreased regarding the lung pathological changes, including peribronchiolitis, perivasculitis, and eosinophil influx, compared to the group treated with ovalbumin alone. These changes were accompanied by a decrease in proinflammatory cytokines IL-4 and IL-5 and an increase in the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, indicating a shift toward a more balanced immune response. The number of inflammatory cells in the BAL fluid was also significantly reduced in the somatic group, indicating a decrease in inflammation.

CONCLUSION

These preclinical findings suggest that in experimental models, T. cati somatic extract exhibits promising potential as a therapeutic agent for mitigating allergic airway inflammation. Its observed effects on immune response modulation and reduction of inflammatory cell infiltration warrant further investigation in clinical studies to assess its efficacy and safety in human patients.

[Adverse events in biologics for severe asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a pathology that remains severe and is inadequately controlled in 4% of patients. Identification of multiple pathophysiological mechanisms has led to the development of biomedicines, of which there are currently five available in France, with a safety profile that appears favorable but remains uncertain due to a lack of real-life experience with these new molecules.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

Although relatively benign, the adverse effects of biologics are diverse. Headache, joint pain, skin reactions at the injection site, fever and asthenia are commonly observed during the different treatments. Ophthalmological complications seem restricted to dupilumab, with numerous cases of keratitis and conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Several respiratory complications have also been observed, essentially consisting in pharyngitis and other upper respiratory infections. Hypereosinophilia may occur, mainly with dupilumab, requiring investigation of systemic repercussions or vasculitis. Allergic reactions are uncommon but require careful monitoring during initial injections.

CONCLUSION

Biologics for severe asthma are recent drugs with a favorable safety profile, but with little real-life experience, justifying increased vigilance by prescribing physicians.

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.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

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.

Parasitic infections related to anti-type 2 immunity monoclonal antibodies: a disproportionality analysis in the food and drug administration's adverse event reporting system (FAERS)

Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting immunoglobulin E (IgE) [omalizumab], type 2 (T2) cytokine interleukin (IL) 5 [mepolizumab, reslizumab], IL-4 Receptor (R) α [dupilumab], and IL-5R [benralizumab]), improve quality of life in patients with T2-driven inflammatory diseases. However, there is a concern for an increased risk of helminth infections. The aim was to explore safety signals of parasitic infections for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and benralizumab. Methods: Spontaneous reports were used from the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2004 to 2021. Parasitic infections were defined as any type of parasitic infection term obtained from the Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities® (MedDRA®). Safety signal strength was assessed by the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR). Results: 15,502,908 reports were eligible for analysis. Amongst 175,888 reports for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and benralizumab, there were 79 reports on parasitic infections. Median age was 55 years (interquartile range 24-63 years) and 59.5% were female. Indications were known in 26 (32.9%) reports; 14 (53.8%) biologicals were reportedly prescribed for asthma, 8 (30.7%) for various types of dermatitis, and 2 (7.6%) for urticaria. A safety signal was observed for each biological, except for reslizumab (due to lack of power), with the strongest signal attributed to benralizumab (ROR = 15.7, 95% Confidence Interval: 8.4-29.3). Conclusion: Parasitic infections were disproportionately reported for mAbs targeting IgE, T2 cytokines, or T2 cytokine receptors. While the number of adverse event reports on parasitic infections in the database was relatively low, resulting safety signals were disproportionate and warrant further investigation.

Omalizumab for Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Narrative Review of Current Status

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a debilitating inflammatory disorder of the skin, characterized by a fluctuating natural history, a complex mechanism of action, and a significant burden on patients, including effect on quality of life, development of psychosocial disorders, and a range of comorbidities. Recent international guidelines recommend a therapeutic approach of first-line treatment with second generation H1-antihistamines and second-line treatment with the biologic omalizumab. Here, the salient aspects of CSU and current status of data for omalizumab for patients with CSU are reviewed, with a focus on mechanism of action, efficacy and real-world effectiveness (including patient outcomes, response, relapse, and remission), and safety (including consideration of the risk of anaphylaxis). The review also considers recent data on COVID-19, CSU, and omalizumab and presents our perspective on future needs. Overall, the data suggest that omalizumab is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with CSU that provides benefits for a wide range of patients.

Long-Term Safety of Omalizumab in Children with Asthma and/or Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A 4-Year Prospective Study in Real Life

Background: Insufficient data are available on the long-term "real-life" safety profile of omalizumab in children. This study evaluated the long-term safety of omalizumab in a pediatric cohort with severe asthma or chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Methods: A monocentric, prospective study evaluated the long-term safety of omalizumab in patients aged 6-18 years. Each patient completed the standardized MedDRA questionnaire to identify adverse events (AEs). Results: In total, 23 patients, median age 15 (14-18) years, affected by severe asthma (60.8%) or CSU (39.2%), treated with omalizumab for 2 (1-4) years were enrolled. The most common AEs belong to the system organ class (SOC) of general disorders and administration-site conditions (37.17%). Skin and subcutaneous tissue problems represent the second most frequently reported AEs (24.35%). Central nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders were quite frequent (15.38% and 8.97%, respectively). Other adverse events were tachycardia (5.12%), vertigo and abdominal pain (2.60% and 3.86%, respectively), and dry eye (1.3%). Only one patient reported herpes virus infection during treatment (1.3%). No cases of anaphylaxis, hemopathies, uronephropathies, respiratory, psychiatric, hepatobiliary, or oncological pathologies were reported. Conclusions: Long-term "real-life" treatment with omalizumab in children appears well tolerated. Its safety and efficacy profile makes omalizumab an excellent alternative in severe asthma and CSU in children.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Moderate to Severe Allergic Asthma Patients in China: A Post-Authorization Study

Purpose

Omalizumab was first approved in China in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe allergic asthma for adult and adolescent patients aged ≥12 years. In accordance with the Chinese Health Authority requirement, the post-authorization safety study (PASS) was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in a real-world setting in patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma in China over a 24-week observation period.

Patients and Methods

This is a single-arm, non-interventional, multicenter, PASS conducted in adult, adolescent, and pediatric patients (≥6 years old) with moderate to severe allergic asthma receiving omalizumab in a real-world clinical setting from 2020 to 2021 in 59 sites of mainland China.

Results

In total, 1546 patients were screened and 1528 were enrolled. They were stratified according to age (6 to <12 years [n = 191]; ≥12 years [n = 1336]; unknown [n = 1]). Among the overall population, 23.6% and 4.5% of patients reported adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively. Among pediatric patients (6 to <12 years), 14.1% and 1.6% patients reported AEs and SAEs, respectively. AEs that led to treatment discontinuation in both age groups were <2%. No new safety signals were reported. Effectiveness results showed improvement in lung function, asthma control, and quality of life (QoL).

Conclusion

The findings of the current study demonstrated that the safety profile of omalizumab was consistent with its known profile in allergic asthma, and no new safety signals were reported. Omalizumab treatment was effective in improving the lung function and QoL in patients with allergic asthma.

Pathobiology of Type 2 Inflammation in Asthma and Nasal Polyposis

Asthma and nasal polyposis often coexist and are frequently intertwined by tight pathogenic links, mainly consisting of the cellular and molecular pathways underpinning type 2 airway inflammation. The latter is characterized by a structural and functional impairment of the epithelial barrier, associated with the eosinophilic infiltration of both the lower and upper airways, which can be driven by either allergic or non-allergic mechanisms. Type 2 inflammatory changes are predominantly due to the biological actions exerted by interleukins 4 (IL-4), 13 (IL-13), and 5 (IL-5), produced by T helper 2 (Th2) lymphocytes and group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2). In addition to the above cytokines, other proinflammatory mediators involved in the pathobiology of asthma and nasal polyposis include prostaglandin D₂ and cysteinyl leukotrienes. Within this context of 'united airway diseases', nasal polyposis encompasses several nosological entities such as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). Because of the common pathogenic origins of asthma and nasal polyposis, it is not surprising that the more severe forms of both these disorders can be successfully treated by the same biologic drugs, targeting many molecular components (IgE, IL-5 and its receptor, IL-4/IL-13 receptors) of the type 2 inflammatory trait.

Canadian multidisciplinary expert consensus on the use of biologics in upper airways: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective.

METHODS

A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61.

RESULTS

After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease.

CONCLUSION

This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

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.

A Review of Adverse Reactions to Biologics Used in Allergy-Immunology Practice

Biologic agents have become an integral therapeutic option for practicing allergists-immunologists for the management of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and various immunologic conditions. As these agents vary considerably from traditional small-molecule drugs, various adverse reactions have been noted. A different approach must be used to classify these reactions beyond the classic Gell-Coombs classification system as it does not capture many of the adverse events seen with biologic therapy. This article addresses the available literature on proposed classification systems and diagnostic modalities for adverse events associated with biologics and reviews each approved agent used frequently in allergy-immunology practice.

Current evaluation and management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps

INTRODUCTION

A clear understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and its close association with other airway pathologies, especially asthma, helps to comprehend the concept of the united airway and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the actual roll of biologic therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This expert review is the synthesis of a working group on the current state of the art of the evaluation and management of CRSwNP. A thorough analysis of the literature has been conducted for the latest studies and results, specially the European (EPOS 2020) and American (ICAR-RS 2021) guidelines.

EXPERT OPINION

The roles of optimal medical treatment and indications for surgery are becoming clearer, but much research is still needed regarding the extent and radicality when surgery is indicated. The main objectives of this review were to provide a clear and updated description of treatments, their indication, follow-up, and response criteria. These steps are considering the broad spectrum of inflammation endophenotypes and the biologic therapy available. Understanding the role and limitations of each specialty is key for providing greatest benefit to the patient.

The Role of Omalizumab in NSAID-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease: A Narrative Review

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is a condition characterized by the triad of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, bronchial asthma, and hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. This article explores the current knowledge on the various pathological mechanism(s) of N-ERD-such as arachidonic acid metabolism, cysteinyl leukotrienes, prostaglandins, platelets, IgE, mast cells, eosinophils, basophils, and innate immune system-and the role of omalizumab in its management. The authors dive deep into the role of IgE in N-ERD and its potential as a therapeutic target. IgE plays a significant role in mediating allergic reactions, is intricately linked with mast cells, interacts with multiple immunopathological pathways involved in N-ERD, and tends to be elevated in patients with N-ERD. Multiple real-world studies, observational studies, and case series, as well as 2 phase III trials, have demonstrated the effectiveness of omalizumab in the management of N-ERD. For a disease with such a well-documented history, the pathophysiology of N-ERD and the most effective ways to manage it remain a mystery. With this background, the authors ask-is IgE a missing piece of the N-ERD puzzle, thus explaining the efficacy of omalizumab in the treatment of the disease?

Severe asthma and personalized approach in the choice of biologic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma requires intensive pharmacological treatment to achieve disease control. Oral corticosteroids are effective, but their use is burdened with important side effects. Biologics targeting the specific inflammatory pathways underpinning the disease have been shown to be effective but not all patients respond equally well. As we treat more patients than those who can respond, our inability to predict responders has important healthcare costs considering that biologics are expensive drugs. Thus, a more precise choice of the 'right patients' to be prescribed with the 'right biologics' would be desirable.

RECENT FINDINGS

Machine learning techniques showed that it is possible to increase our ability to predict outcomes in patients treated with biologics. Recently, we identified by cluster analysis four different clusters within the T2 high phenotype with differential benralizumab response. Two of these clusters, characterized by higher levels of inflammatory markers, showed the highest response rate (80-90%).

SUMMARY

Machine learning holds promise for asthma research enabling us to predict which patients will respond to which drug. These techniques can facilitate the diagnostic workflow and increase the chance of selecting the more appropriate treatment option for the individual patient, enhancing patient care and satisfaction.

Real-life Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: RELIEF Study

Introduction:

Patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) are at risk of severe exacerbations. Omalizumab is recommended as an add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled SAA, despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β2-agonist combination therapy (standard therapy).

RELIEF was a prospective, open label, multicenter study conducted to assess the real-life effectiveness of omalizumab co-administered with standard therapy in patients with SAA for 24 months.

Methods:

A total of 347 patients aged ≥ 6 years with SAA were enrolled, 285 of whom (8 pediatrics and 277 adolescents and adults) completed this 24-month study. Compared with the 12 months prior to baseline, the mean number of exacerbations was reduced in the overall population at any time interval during the study. Proportion of patients with no exacerbations increased to 77.7% at 24 months from 32.6% at 12 months prior to baseline. A reduction in healthcare resource utilization was also observed. The mean number of specialist visits reduced from baseline (5.8 visits) to 2.4 visits at Month 24.

Results:

The mean asthma control test score was >19 at every time-point during the study. The rate of Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) for asthma response significantly increased at Months 18 and 24 (P <0.05) compared to baseline. Pulmonary function remained relatively stable for the overall study population. There were no new or unexpected safety findings in the study.

Conclusion:

RELIEF study showed that add-on therapy with omalizumab is effective in reducing exacerbations, healthcare utilization, and improving GETE score in patients with SAA uncontrolled by standard therapy.

Novel Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma Endotypes

Severe asthma comprises several heterogeneous phenotypes, underpinned by complex pathomechanisms known as endotypes. The latter are driven by intercellular networks mediated by molecular components which can be targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, currently available antibodies are directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13), as well as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and other alarmins. Among these therapeutic strategies, the best choice should be made according to the phenotypic/endotypic features of each patient with severe asthma, who can thus respond with significant clinical and functional improvements. Conversely, very poor options so far characterize the experimental pipelines referring to the perspective biological management of non-type 2 severe asthma, which thereby needs to be the focus of future thorough research.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody that was globally approved as a personalized treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This review summarizes the knowledge of almost two decades of use of omalizumab to answer some important everyday clinical practice questions, concerning its efficacy and safety and its association with other asthma-related and drug-related parameters. Evidence suggests that omalizumab improves asthma control and reduces the incidence and frequency of exacerbations in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is also effective in those patients in reducing corticosteroid use and healthcare utilization, while it also seems to improve lung function. Several biomarkers have been recognized in predicting its efficacy in its target group of patients, while the optimal duration for evaluating its efficacy is between 16 and 32 weeks.

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.

An update to the 2013-2014 American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines for the pharmacological management of atopic dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

Atopic dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition that affects millions of people worldwide, and a standardized approach to treatment was published by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2013-14. Since 2014, new FDA-approved treatment options such as dupilumab and crisaborole have changed the landscape of AD management, and future therapies such as JAK inhibitors and anti-interleukin 13 and 31 antibodies appear effective, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review to give clinicians an updated toolbox to aid in pharmacologic management.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors explore the updated efficacy and safety data on established therapeutic options for AD including topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil. In addition, the authors also explore trial data and studies on dupilumab, crisaborole, omalizumab, tofacitinib, ruxolinitib, abrocitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, delgocitinib, nemoliuzumab, and tralokinumab.

EXPERT OPINION

The AAD guidelines must be updated in the future to include several new treatment modalities that have revolutionized the pharmacologic management of patients with AD, including dupilumab and crisaborole. The future of AD treatment is also extremely bright, as JAK inhibitors and Il-13/31 antibodies have shown convincing results in the improvement of AD patients' lives in various trials and studies that have been examined in this paper.

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

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

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

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

Canadian Rhinology Working Group consensus statement: biologic therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). There remains a population in CRSwNP that despite medical therapy and endoscopic sinus surgery have persistent signs and symptoms of disease. Therefore, biologics, monoclonal antibody agents, could be beneficial therapeutic treatments for these patients. There have been eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL-5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. However, there are no formal recommendations for the optimal use of biologics in managing Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) within the Canadian health care environment.

METHODS

A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. 17 fellowship trained rhinologists across Canada evaluated the 28 original statements on a scale of 1-10 and provided comments. A rating within 1-3 indicated disagreement, 8-10 demonstrated agreement and 4-7 represented being neutral towards a statement. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range and standard deviation. Consensus was defined by removing the highest and lowest of the scores and using the "3 point relaxed system".

RESULTS

After three rounds, a total of 11 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with CRS.

CONCLUSION

This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of patients with CRS, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

Biologics in severe asthma

Asthma is a chronic airway disease consisting of usually variable airflow limitation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Many different phenotypes characterize the clinical expression of asthma, determined by heterogeneous inflammatory patterns driven by distinct cellular and molecular mechanisms known as endotypes. Inside the complex framework of asthma pathobiology, several molecules such as immunoglobulins E (IgE), pro-inflammatory cytokines and their receptors can be targeted by present and future biological treatments of severe asthma. Within this context, already registered monoclonal antibodies including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab may interfere at various levels with the pathogenic pathways responsible for type-2 airway inflammation. In particular, these drugs target IgE (omalizumab), IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab), IL-5 receptor (benralizumab) and IL-4/IL-13 receptors (dupilumab), respectively. Moreover, other biological therapies are under evaluation in pre-marketing trials, mainly aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies directed against innate cytokines such as IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). Among current and perspective therapeutic approaches, clinicians can choose phenotype/endotype-driven tailored treatments, able to pursue an effective control of difficult to treat type-2 asthma.

Biologics for atopic diseases: Indication, side effect management, and new developments

With the advent of biologicals, more and more therapeutics are available that specifically address specific switch points in the pathomechanism of immunologically dominated diseases. Thus, the focus of diagnostics and therapy (precision medicine) is more on the individual disease characteristics of the individual patient. Regarding the different phenotypes of atopic diseases, severe asthma was the first entity for which biologicals were approved, followed by urticaria, and finally atopic dermatitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Experience in the treatment of severe bronchial asthma has shown that the intensity of the response to biological therapy depends on the quality of clinical and immunological phenotyping of the patients. This also applies to different diseases of the atopic form, as patients can suffer from several atopic diseases at the same time, each with different characteristics. Biologics are already emerging that may represent a suitable therapy for allergic bronchial asthma, which often occurs together with severe neurodermatitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. In practice, however, the question of possible combinations of biologicals for the therapy of complex clinical pictures of individual patients is increasingly arising. In doing so, the side effect profile must be taken into account, including hypersensitivity reactions, whose diagnostic and logistical management must aim at a safe and efficient therapy of the underlying disease. Increased attention must also be paid to biological therapy in pregnancy and planned (predictable) vaccinations as well as existing infections, such as SARS-CoV-2 infection. Before starting a biological therapy, the immune status should be checked with regard to chronic viral and bacterial infections and, if necessary, the vaccination status should be refreshed or missing vaccinations should be made up for before starting therapy. Currently, reliable data on the effect of biologicals on the immunological situation of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 are not available. Therefore, research and development of suitable diagnostic methods for detection of immunologically caused side effects as well as detection of potential therapy responders and non-responders is of great importance.

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

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

Molecular Targets for Biological Therapies of Severe Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous respiratory disease characterized by usually reversible bronchial obstruction, which is clinically expressed by different phenotypes driven by complex pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). Within this context, during the last years several molecular effectors and signalling pathways have emerged as suitable targets for biological therapies of severe asthma, refractory to standard treatments. Indeed, various therapeutic antibodies currently allow to intercept at different levels the chain of pathogenic events leading to type 2 (T2) airway inflammation. In addition to pro-allergic immunoglobulin E (IgE), that chronologically represents the first molecule against which an anti-asthma monoclonal antibody (omalizumab) was developed, today other targets are successfully exploited by biological treatments of severe asthma. In particular, pro-eosinophilic interleukin 5 (IL-5) can be targeted by mepolizumab or reslizumab, whereas benralizumab is a selective blocker of IL-5 receptor. Moreover, dupilumab behaves as a dual receptor antagonist of pleiotropic interleukins 4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). Besides these drugs that are already available in medical practice, other biologics are under clinical development such as those targeting innate cytokines, also including the alarmin thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which plays a key role in the pathogenesis of type 2 asthma. Therefore, ongoing and future biological therapies are significantly changing the global scenario of severe asthma management. These new therapeutic options make it possible to implement phenotype/endotype-specific treatments, that are delineating personalized approaches precisely addressing the individual traits of asthma pathobiology. Such tailored strategies are thus allowing to successfully target the immune-inflammatory responses underlying uncontrolled T2-high asthma.

Exploratory Study of Signals for Asthma Drugs in Children, Using the EudraVigilance Database of Spontaneous Reports

Introduction

As asthma medications are frequently prescribed for children, knowledge of the safety of these drugs in the paediatric population is important. Although spontaneous reports cannot be used to prove causality of adverse events, they are important in the detection of safety signals.

Objective

Our objective was to provide an overview of adverse drug events associated with asthma medications in children from a spontaneous reports database and to identify new signals.

Methods

Spontaneous reports concerning asthma drugs were obtained from EudraVigilance, the European Medicine Agency’s database for suspected adverse drug reactions. For each drug–event combination, we calculated the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) in the study period 2011–2017. Signals in children (aged 0–17 years) were compared with signals in the whole population. Analyses were repeated for different age categories, by sex and by therapeutic area.

Results

In total, 372,345 reports in children resulted in 385 different signals concerning asthma therapy. The largest group consisted of psychiatric events (65 signals). Only 30 signals were new, with seven, including herpes viral infections, associated with omalizumab. Stratification by age, sex and therapeutic area provided additional new signals, such as hypertrichoses with budesonide and encephalopathies with theophylline. Of all signals in children, 60 (16%) did not appear in the whole population.

Conclusions

The majority of signals regarding asthma therapy in children were already known, but we also identified new signals. We showed that signals can be masked if age stratification is not conducted. Further exploration is needed to investigate the risk and causality of the newly found signals.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-019-00870-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term omalizumab efficacy in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab therapy was found to be safe and effective as an add-on therapy for patients with poorly controlled severe asthma. Although several studies over the last decade have demonstrated its efficacy in other Immunoglobulin E related diseases, its use in such conditions is off-label.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of long-term therapy with Omalizumab in patients with persistent severe allergic rhinitis and inadequately controlled severe asthma.

METHODS

Patients with poorly controlled severe asthma and persistent allergic rhinitis were enrolled and treated with Omalizumab for 36 months with every four-week subcutaneous administration. The efficacy assessment included the severity of AR symptoms every six months using Visual Analogue Scale, Asthma Control Test, nasal endoscopy, spirometry, and biomarkers (blood eosinophils and neutrophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, total IgE).

RESULTS

Eleven patients aged between 26 and 70 years were enrolled, and 10 completed the study. A significant improvement of allergic rhinitis symptoms, Asthma Control Test, and lung function was observed. There was also a reduction in the status of the biomarkers at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

Long-term therapy with Omalizumab was effective and safe in treating severe persistent allergic rhinitis and concomitant asthma.

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background

Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience.

Methods

We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared.

Results

Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics (part I): allergy as an important differential diagnosis in complex immune-derived adverse events

Purpose

Biotechnological substances (BSs) are strongly relied upon to prevent rejection of transplanted organs, and to treat oncological, allergological, and other inflammatory diseases. Allergic reactions to partly foreign biologics can occur due to their potential immunogenicity. The severity of an immune response to a biological drug may range from no clinical significance to a severe, life-threatening anaphylactic reaction.

Methods

Detailed searches were performed on Pubmed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to include all available publications. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and British Columbia Cancer Agency Drug Manual databases were screened for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR), infusion reaction, injection site reaction, urticaria, and anaphylaxis for individual BSs.

Results

Treatment with BSs can cause various types of HSR. These are mentioned in the literature with definitions such as allergic reactions, anaphylactoid reactions, anaphylaxis, HSR, infusion reactions, injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, and urticaria. Due to the overlap in signs and symptoms in the reported descriptions, it is not always possible to differentiate these reactions properly according to their pathomechanism. Similarly, many data reported as anaphylaxis actually describe severe anaphylactic reactions (grades III or IV).

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a simpler symptom- or system-based classification and scoring system to create an awareness for HSRs to BSs. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of HSRs and increased clinical experience in the treatment of side effects will provide timely control of unexpected reactions. As a result, immunotherapy with BSs will become safer in the future.

Adherence to omalizumab: A multicenter "real-world" study

Background

Adherence to medications is crucial in patients with severe asthma in light of the negative clinical impact and costs of non-adherence. Adherence to omalizumab has not been well studied in real-world settings. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to omalizumab and evaluate treatment effectiveness in relation to adherence.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational, and multicenter real-world study. Omalizumab dose, timing of administration, and duration of treatment (<2 years; 2–4 years; > 4 years) were analyzed. Adherence was evaluated by examining rates of expected and missing doses. Good adherence (<10% of doses missed) and poor adherence (>10% doses missed) were determined. For effectiveness in relation to adherence of omalizumab we considered asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, asthma control test (ACT), and Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV₁).

Results

A total of 196 patients were evaluated, and 161 were suitable for data analyses. Good adherence was shown in 90.7% of patients and poor adherence in 9.3%. Considering adherence in relation to treatment duration: <2 years, 87.8% of patients were adherent (expected doses, 1186; missed doses, 53); 2–4 years, 85.9% were adherent (expected doses, 2985; missed doses, 127); >4 years, 100% were adherent (expected doses, 6120; missed doses, none). Indices of efficacy between pre- and post-treatment showed significant improvement (p < 0.001). The effectiveness indices between pre- and post-treatment, among adherent and non-adherent patients, ACT, and asthma exacerbations both showed significant differences (p = 0.043 and p = 0.049, respectively). Binomial logistic regression analysis showed that increasing age, better ACT score, and 14-day timing were significantly associated with increased adherence to therapy.

Conclusions

High adherence to omalizumab was demonstrated in a real-world setting, which was associated with better outcomes and control of asthma.

Real-life effectiveness of omalizumab in difficult-to-treat versus severe asthma: a national cohort study in Belgium

Background

Guidelines recommend omalizumab in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. We investigated real-life use of omalizumab, the proportion of patients fulfilling eligibility criteria, its costs and its effectiveness.

Method

In a cohort of asthma patients initiating treatment with omalizumab in Belgium between 2010 and 2016, we investigated fulfilment of eligibility criteria (chronic use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and ≥2 severe asthma exacerbations in previous year), and compared hospitalisations and systemic corticosteroid consumption in the year before and after omalizumab initiation. We computed healthcare costs in the respective time periods and compared the cost per prevented hospitalisation in patients fulfilling eligibility criteria versus those who did not.

Results

Between 2010 and 2016, omalizumab treatment was initiated in 2068 patients with asthma; only 24% fulfilled the eligibility criteria, mainly due to nonadherence to high-dose ICSs + LABAs. The proportion of patients hospitalised for asthma decreased from 41% to 21% in eligible patients (absolute risk reduction, 20%), whereas the absolute risk reduction was 5% (from 19% to 14%) in noneligible patients. The cost per prevented hospitalisation was €44 238 versus €139 495, respectively. Chronic use of systemic corticosteroids was discontinued in 35% of eligible patients versus 15% of noneligible patients.

Conclusion

In Belgium, omalizumab is mostly initiated in uncontrolled asthma patients who are nonadherent to ICSs + LABAs. Omalizumab decreases hospitalisations and the use of systemic corticosteroids, but at a high cost. Careful management of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma should be a priority before prescribing omalizumab.

A drug safety review of treating eosinophilic asthma with monoclonal antibodies

Introduction: The last two decades have seen significant progress in the treatment of severe asthma especially the severe eosinophilic phenotype. This review article serves to update the reader on the known safety profiles of these medications. It does not serve as a review of their clinical efficacies.Areas covered: All four of the currently approved monoclonal antibodies (biologics) used in the treatment of severe asthma are discussed with reference to the known safety data garnered from clinical trials and real world evidence. A fifth, approved by The European Commission and FDA, but not yet by NICE or Health Canada, is also discussed.Expert opinion: For each of the five biologics the authors shall summarize the known safety profiles and also the potential adverse effects as their usage is extended long term with suggestions for real world studies to help us develop our knowledge base.

Omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria in "complex" patients: data from real-life clinical practice

Introduction

Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, approved for patients affected by chronic spontaneous urticaria resistant to antihistamines. Although the clinical benefit of omalizumab has been established in several clinical trials, there are very little data about long-term treatment with this drug and real-life reports regarding its use in patients affected by comorbidities other than urticaria are lacking.

Objectives

To assess omalizumab efficacy and safety in a heterogeneous population of patients affected by chronic spontaneous urticaria and several comorbidities in a real-world setting.

Materials and methods

Patients affected by chronic spontaneous urticaria with weekly urticaria activity score >16 resistant to antihistamines were treated with omalizumab 300 mg injection as add-on to H1-antihistamines administered every 4 weeks for 6 months. Clinical assessment of weekly urticaria activity score, dermatology life quality index and blood tests were performed at baseline, 12, 24 and 52 weeks of treatment. Response was assessed based on reduction weekly urticaria activity score.

Results

Thirty-two patients (22F; 10M) with a mean age of 52.4 years (range 27-72) affected by chronic spontaneous urticaria were enrolled. Comorbidities affecting our study population were divided into 6 categories: cardio-metabolic (77%), oncologic (19%), infectious (16%), allergic (45%) immunologic (41%) and others (18%). Omalizumab determined a satisfactory reduction of symptoms of chronic spontaneous urticaria and an amelioration of quality of life within our population. No relevant alterations regarding patients' underlying conditions were encountered. This is the first study regarding the use of omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria in a population of adult patients affected by several comorbidities, eg, cardio-metabolic, oncologic, infectious, allergic, immunologic and psychiatric diseases. Real-life data represent a valuable source of information about a drug's safety and efficacy profile, especially in patients affected by different comorbidities that are widely diffused in Western countries.

The use of biologics in children with allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis: Current updates

The therapeutic goals of the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are symptom relief, avoiding complications, and improving quality of life. In the treatment of AR and CRS, several limitations of currently prescribed medicines have been identified. Antihistamine administration (both oral and topical) together with intranasal corticosteroids bring relief to the majority of patients, but their dependency on the medications and a necessity to maintain strict compliance with regular medication regimes pose a challenge. Immunotherapeutic agents are an option in some patients, but polysensitized patients, the risk of anaphylaxis, and the need for daily administration for years are limiting it from becoming the main therapy modality. Immunotherapy in any form requires commitment by the patient, which renders adherence and compliance issues particularly relevant. The procedure involved are generally time-consuming and entail an associated risk of severe adverse reactions. The use of biologics could overcome the limitations of other therapeutic modalities. They could be used as a monotherapy or combined with pre-existing medications. The benefits of targeted therapy include less adverse effects and optimal efficacy. The aim of the present review was to investigate the collective literature to date pertaining to the role of biologics in managing children with AR and CRS.

Self-reported satisfaction of patients receiving omalizumab for severe allergic asthma in Malta

Treatment satisfaction is of utmost importance for ensuring adherence. Omalizumab is administered long-term if effective and well-tolerated in a hospital setting. The aim was to evaluate treatment satisfaction with omalizumab in Malta and to identify factors that may influence patients' satisfaction. A questionnaire was distributed to all asthmatic adult patients receiving omalizumab for at least one year. The questionnaire included demographic data, dosing regimen, asthma control test and the 14-item English version of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Version 1.4. The TSQM 1.4 domain scores range from 0 to 100. Higher scores represent higher satisfaction. Our cohort included 33 patients (52% males), mean age 53.7 ± 11 years, mean baseline IgE level 510.6IU/ml, mean duration of treatment 3.8 ± 1.98 years and mean number of injections per month 4.6 ± 2.6. Median TSQM scores were as follows: graded effectiveness 78%, graded side effects 100%, graded convenience 74.2% and overall satisfaction 76%. Regression analysis showed that convenience score, effectiveness score and ACT score were significantly associated with global satisfaction. Global satisfaction scored high among the Maltese cohort of patients despite the inconvenience and side effects associated with receiving omalizumab. This is an add-on beneficial effect to the efficacy and effectiveness already been achieved with this medication.

[Complications and side effects of conservative treatment of rhinological diseases]

BACKGROUND

The spectrum of rhinological diseases is wide, as is that of their drug-based treatment. Only 1272 compounds coded R01 (nasal preparations) are listed in the ATC group (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification). Conservative therapy of rhinological diseases additionally includes systemic (often oral) application of corticosteroids, antibiotics and immunomodulators.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to outline possible complications of medication (subdivided into classes of ingredients) commonly used to treat rhinological diseases in hospitals. Useful therapeutic and preventive measures will be presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on the expert information in the current pharmacological drug index (ATC) for the R01 group as well as literature research in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases, medication used for the treatment of rhinological diseases was analysed in terms of side effects and their frequency.

RESULTS

Common side effects of intranasally applied medication are local irritations, burning, dryness and epistaxis. Orally or intravenously applied rhinological medication can affect the organs and lead to side effects such as cardiac dysrhythmia or alterations of the blood count. It is recommended that the therapeutic be selected on an individual basis and that the patient be thoroughly informed about possible side effects.

CONCLUSION

Particularly when treating children or pregnant or breastfeeding women, the indications of all nasal preparations should be checked carefully. The huge variety of rhinologicals enables an optimal individual selection on the basis of consideration of known side effects.

Short- and long-term real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in severe allergic asthma: systematic review of 42 studies published 2008-2018

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a recombinant monoclonal anti-IgE antibody approved in the US as add-on treatment in moderate-to-severe allergic asthma (in severe allergic asthma [SAA] in Europe). A 2016 review of 24 real-world effectiveness studies in SAA published between 2008-2015 concluded that omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in objective and subjective outcomes with benefits extending beyond 2 years. Several new real-world studies have been published since, bringing the total to 42 studies. Areas covered: This systematic review of 42 studies published since 2008 updates and extends the 2016 review on the real-word evidence on omalizumab in SAA. It offers greater granularity as to time windows within which outcomes are reported and includes studies extending well beyond 4 years post omalizumab initiation. Expert commentary: This review firmly establishes the short-term effectiveness of omalizumab in adolescent and adult patients with SAA at 1 year, and provides strong evidence of long-term effectiveness up to 4 years and emergent evidence of effectiveness beyond 4 years. In the aggregate, these 42 studies underscore the long-term effectiveness of omalizumab in terms of: reducing exacerbations and symptoms, achieving asthma control, improving lung function, enhancing quality of life, decreasing emergency department visits and hospitalizations, and promoting concomitant medication-sparing.