Pairwise indirect treatment comparison of dupilumab versus other biologics in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in allergy: Targeting IgE, cytokine, and alarmin pathways

The etiology of allergy is closely linked to type 2 inflammatory responses ultimately leading to the production of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), a key driver of many allergic conditions. At a high level, initial allergen exposure disrupts epithelial integrity, triggering local inflammation via alarmins including IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP, which activate type 2 innate lymphoid cells as well as other immune cells to secrete type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, promoting Th2 cell development and eosinophil recruitment. Th2 cell dependent B cell activation promotes the production of allergen-specific IgE, which stably binds to basophils and mast cells. Rapid degranulation of these cells upon allergen re-exposure leads to allergic symptoms. Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying allergic pathophysiology have significantly shaped the development of therapeutic intervention strategies. In this review, we highlight key therapeutic targets within the allergic cascade with a particular focus on past, current and future treatment approaches using monoclonal antibodies. Specific targeting of alarmins, type 2 cytokines and IgE has shown varying degrees of clinical benefit in different allergic indications including asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, food allergies and eosinophilic esophagitis. While multiple therapeutic antibodies have been approved for clinical use, scientists are still working on ways to improve on current treatment approaches. Here, we provide context to understand therapeutic targeting strategies and their limitations, discussing both knowledge gaps and promising future directions to enhancing clinical efficacy in allergic disease management.

Real-world effectiveness of dupilumab versus benralizumab and mepolizumab

Introduction: In the United States, this real-world study compared the effectiveness of dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations and systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions among patients with asthma. Methods: Patients (≥12 years old) who initiated dupilumab, benralizumab, or mepolizumab (index) between November 2018 and September 2020 were identified by using electronic medical record data. Subjects were included if they had ≥ 12 months of data before and after the index date and two or more severe asthma-related exacerbations before the index date. Differences in baseline characteristics were addressed by using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). Pairwise comparisons between dupilumab and benralizumab, or mepolizumab were conducted by using negative binomial regression, adjusting for baseline rates and unbalance characteristics (≥10% standardized differences) after IPTW. Results: Overall, a total of 1737 subjects met all criteria: 825 dupilumab, 461 benralizumab, and 451 mepolizumab initiators. In the postindex period, dupilumab was associated with a 24% and 28% significant reduction in the risk of severe asthma exacerbations versus benralizumab (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.67-0.86)] and mepolizumab (IRR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.82]), respectively. In addition, dupilumab treatment significantly reduced SCS prescriptions by 16% and 25% versus benralizumab and mepolizumab, respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study represents one of the largest real-world comparisons of biologics (dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for asthma in the United States to date. This analysis shows that the use of dupilumab was associated with a significantly greater reduction in both severe asthma exacerbations and SCS prescriptions compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab.

An indirect comparison of 144-week efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dolutegravir plus lamivudine and second-generation integrase inhibitor-based, 3-drug, single-tablet regimens in therapy-naive people with HIV-1

BACKGROUND

The long-term efficacy and safety of the 2-drug regimen dolutegravir (DTG) + lamivudine (3TC) and 3-drug single-tablet regimens recommended for antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive people with HIV-1 (PWH) have yet to be compared directly in clinical trials. This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was conducted to compare the durability of efficacy and long-term safety of DTG + 3TC vs second-generation, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based, 3-drug, single-tablet regimens bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) and DTG/abacavir/3TC (DTG/ABC/3TC) at Week 144 after treatment initiation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified 4 trials evaluating the treatment regimens of interest in ART-naive PWH (GEMINI-1, GEMINI-2, GS-US-380-1489, and GS-US-380-1490). Safety, efficacy, and tolerability results were compared using fixed-effects Bucher ITC methodology to calculate relative outcomes.

RESULTS

Rates of virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL, US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot analysis) and virologic failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL) as well as mean change in CD4 + cell count were similar with DTG + 3TC, BIC/FTC/TAF, and DTG/ABC/3TC at Week 144. Serious adverse events occurred less frequently with DTG + 3TC compared with both BIC/FTC/TAF (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI 0.29-0.87; P = 0.014) and DTG/ABC/3TC (OR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.19-0.75; P = 0.006). Discontinuations and overall adverse events were similar across all 3 regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the 2-drug regimen DTG + 3TC offers comparable and durable efficacy with fewer serious adverse events vs BIC/FTC/TAF and DTG/ABC/3TC through 144 weeks of treatment in ART-naive PWH. These long-term comparative data support the therapeutic value of DTG + 3TC for PWH.

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.

When one plus one means more than two: the blockade of both IL-4 and IL-13 inflammatory pathways with dupilumab in a case of severe refractory T2-high asthma

Novel approach of asthma includes personalised therapy involving specific immune pathways. We describe here a case of T2-high asthma in a 66-year-old woman treated with maximal inhaled therapy and inappropriate usage of oral corticosteroids showing poor symptoms control. Both anti-IgE and (omalizumab) and anti-interleukin (IL)-5 (mepolizumab) monoclonal antibodies treatments were prescribed without significant benefit. Add-on subcutaneous dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the IL-4 receptor subunit alpha, inhibiting signalling from both IL-4 and IL-13, proved to be an effective and safe medication to obtain rapid asthma control. Considering the previous lack of response to both anti-IgE and anti-eosinophilic strategies, we hypothesise that dupilumab upstream activity could exert different and more relevant effects than the simple inhibition of the two single downstream pathways. The current case highlights the need for a deeper analysis of biomolecular interactions in the framework of different asthma endotypes, to identify peculiar profiles associated with specific treatment responses.

Severe pediatric asthma therapy: Dupilumab

Severe asthma is a rare disease affecting <5% of children with asthma. This group of patients account for about 50% of the costs of healthcare for children with asthma. Nowadays, several biological agents are available for pediatric severe asthma. One of these is dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody against the Interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α-subunit that acts as an antagonist against both IL-4 and IL-13. Dupilumab binds the subunit of the IL-4 receptor, at the level of the subunit shared by the IL-13 receptor, blocking the inflammatory cascade of these two cytokines and the progression of the Th2-inflammatory pathway. The efficacy and safety of dupilumab have been investigated in recently published randomized controlled trials including pediatric patients with asthma. Currently, its use in asthma is approved in adults, adolescents, and children with severe asthma with type 2 inflammation, that are not controlled in spite of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another maintenance drug. Studies are warranted for the evaluation of long-term treatment with dupilumab, including steroid sparing effect and discontinuation of treatment. Further research should also be planned in order to investigate dupilumab potential ability to interfere with the natural history of atopy since early childhood.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dupilumab among patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent uncontrolled severe asthma in Japan

Background: Asthma is a common, chronic inflammatory airway disorder, with up to 1,177,000 people receiving asthma treatment in Japan. Dupilumab is a first-in-class, monoclonal antibody for the treatment of atopic diseases, including persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab, compared with other biologics, as add-on treatment to background therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled, persistent asthma in Japan.Methods: A life-time Markov cohort model was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis from the Japanese healthcare payer perspective with an annual discount rate of 2%. Dupilumab was compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab, and against omalizumab (as a hypothetical scenario). Inputs were informed by dupilumab clinical trials (VENTURE [NCT02528214] and QUEST [NCT02414854] trials), the literature, official Japanese sources and expert opinions.Results: The base case results suggest that treatment with dupilumab leads to fewer severe exacerbations and increased life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) than benralizumab and mepolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 per QALY gained, dupilumab was the dominant strategy (lower cost, increased QALYs) versus benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥1,010,921 (US$9,190, US$1=¥110). Versus omalizumab, dupilumab was not cost-effective (ICER of ¥10,802,368 [US$98,203]).Conclusions: In Japan, dupilumab, as an add-on to background therapy, is economically dominant compared with benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab.