Efficacy and safety of dupilumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe asthma: A real-world Dutch cohort study

Dupilumab responder types and predicting factors in patients with type 2 severe asthma: A real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma (SA) presents a considerable healthcare challenge despite optimal standard treatment. Dupilumab, which is effective in type 2 (T2) SA patients, demonstrates variable responses, categorizing patients as non-responders, partial responders, or those achieving clinical remission. However, real-world response rates remain underexplored. Additionally, understanding the characteristics of patients achieving clinical remission is crucial for predicting favourable responses to dupilumab.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate responder types and identify predictors of clinical remission and non-response induced by dupilumab in a real-world cohort of SA patients.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospective data from SA patients undergoing dupilumab treatment in a study conducted at Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland hospital. Data were collected at baseline and at a 12 to 24-months follow-up (T = 12). Response rates were evaluated at T = 12. Predictors of non-response and clinical remission were investigated using multivariate logistic regression analysis with a stepwise forward variable selection approach.

RESULTS

Among the 175 patients screened, 136 met the inclusion criteria. At T = 12, 31.6 % achieved clinical remission, 47.1 % were partial responders and 21.3 % were non-responders. Predictors associated with clinical remission included high baseline blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and male sex. Conversely, younger age at baseline, low baseline total immunoglobin E (IgE) and low baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels were identified as predictors of non-response.

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab results in clinical disease remission in one-third of the treated patients. Clinical remission is predicted by high BEC and male sex, whereas low total IgE, low FeNO and younger age indicate a lower likelihood of response.

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.

Dupilumab Efficacy on Asthma Functional, Inflammatory, and Patient-Reported Outcomes across Different Disease Phenotypes and Severity: A Real-Life Perspective

Dupilumab is currently approved for the treatment of Type 2 severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Few studies have specifically reported on dupilumab efficacy on asthma outcomes as a primary objective in a real-life setting, in patients with and without CRSwNP. Our study aimed to explore the efficacy of dupilumab on functional, inflammatory, and patient-reported outcomes in asthma patients across different disease phenotypes and severity, including mild-to-moderate asthma coexisting with CRSwNP. Data from 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up were analyzed. Asthma (FEV1%, Tiffeneau%, ACT, FeNO, oral steroid use, exacerbation rate, and blood eosinophilia) and polyposis (SNOT22, VAS, NPS) outcomes showed a rapid (3 months) and sustained (6 and 12 months) significant change from baseline, despite most of the patients achieving oral steroid withdrawal. According to the sensitivity analysis, the improvement was not conditioned by either the presence of polyposis or severity of asthma at baseline. Of note, even in the case of milder asthma forms, a significant further improvement was recorded during dupilumab treatment course. Our report provides short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up data on asthma outcomes across different diseases phenotypes and severity, contributing to the real-world evidence related to dupilumab efficacy on upper and lower airways T2 inflammation.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Japanese Patients with Severe Asthma: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Introduction

This study aimed to demonstrate whether benralizumab maintained the safety and effectiveness profiles established in randomized controlled trials among all patients with severe uncontrolled asthma initially prescribed benralizumab in the real-world setting in Japan.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational, multicenter post-marketing study (ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03588546). The safety and tolerability of benralizumab over 1 year were assessed by the incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and serious ADRs. Patient background characteristics indicating a more frequent onset of ADRs with benralizumab were explored. The main effectiveness assessment was the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) score from baseline. Patients with baseline ACQ-5 scores ≥1.5 were defined as having severe uncontrolled asthma.

Results

In total, 632 patients were evaluated for safety and 274 for effectiveness; 139 patients were included in the severe uncontrolled asthma subgroup. ADRs were reported in 12.7% and serious AEs in 13.0% of patients. Serious infections occurred in 3.8%, serious hypersensitivity in 0.3%, and malignancy in 0.3% of patients. No helminthic infections occurred. In the effectiveness population, benralizumab improved the mean (standard deviation [95% confidence interval]) ACQ-5 score by -1.16 (1.40 [-1.36, -0.96]) from baseline; forced expiratory volume in 1 second by 0.151 (0.440 [0.09, 0.21]) L; and Mini-Asthma Quality of Life questionnaire score by 1.16 (1.29 [0.94, 1.38]) at the last observation. The annual asthma exacerbation rate was 0.42. A greater ACQ-5 score improvement was observed among patients with eosinophilic asthma characteristics.

Conclusion

No new safety concerns were raised, and patients experienced benefits consistent with previous studies of benralizumab, thus supporting the use of benralizumab for the add-on maintenance treatment of patients with eosinophilic severe uncontrolled asthma.

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.

Real-World Effectiveness Study of Benralizumab for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: ZEPHYR 2

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact.

METHODS

Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/μL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index.

RESULTS

There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/μL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.

[Biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: Current status report 2023]

Severe asthma is associated with increased use of healthcare services, significant deterioration in the quality of life, and high disease and economic burden on patients and societies. Additional treatments are required for severe forms of asthma. Biological agents are recommended for the treatment of severe asthma. In this current status report, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety data of approved biologics; omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, in the treatment of severe asthma and appropriate patient profiles for these biologics. Pubmed and Cochrane databases based on randomized controlled trials, posthoc analyses, meta-analyses, and real-life studies examining the efficacy and effectiveness of biologics in severe asthma were searched, and the results of these studies on important asthma outcomes were reviewed. Existing studies have shown that all the approved biologic agents targeting cells, receptors, and mediators involved in type 2 inflammation in the bronchial wall in severe asthma significantly reduce asthma exacerbations, reduce the need for oral corticosteroids, and improve asthma control, quality of life, and pulmonary functions. Characterizing the asthma endotype and phenotype in patients with severe asthma and determining which treatment would be more appropriate for a particular patient is an essential step in personalized treatment.

Real-life effects of dupilumab in patients with severe type 2 asthma, according to atopic trait and presence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Background

The efficacy of dupilumab as biological treatment of severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) depends on its ability to inhibit the pathophysiologic mechanisms involved in type 2 inflammation.

Objective

To assess in a large sample of subjects with severe asthma, the therapeutic impact of dupilumab in real-life, with regard to positive or negative skin prick test (SPT) and CRSwNP presence or absence.

Methods

Clinical, functional, and laboratory parameters were measured at baseline and 24 weeks after the first dupilumab administration. Moreover, a comparative evaluation was carried out in relation to the presence or absence of SPT positivity and CRSwNP.

Results

Among the 127 recruited patients with severe asthma, 90 had positive SPT, while 78 reported CRSwNP. Compared with the 6 months preceding the first dupilumab injection, asthma exacerbations decreased from 4.0 (2.0-5.0) to 0.0 (0.0-0.0) (p &lt; 0.0001), as well as the daily prednisone intake fell from 12.50 mg (0.00-25.00) to 0.00 mg (0.00-0.00) (p &lt; 0.0001). In the same period, asthma control test (ACT) score increased from 14 (10-18) to 22 (20-24) (p &lt; 0.0001), and sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) score dropped from 55.84 ± 20.32 to 19.76 ± 12.76 (p &lt; 0.0001). Moreover, we observed relevant increases in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) from the baseline value of 2.13 L (1.62-2.81) to 2.39 L (1.89-3.06) (p &lt; 0.0001). Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) values decreased from 27.0 ppb (18.0-37.5) to 13.0 ppb (5.0-20.0) (p &lt; 0.0001). These improvements were quite similar in subgroups of patients characterized by SPT negativity or positivity, and CRSwNP absence or presence. No statistically significant correlations were detected between serum IgE levels, baseline blood eosinophils or FeNO levels and dupilumab-induced changes, with the exception of FEV1 increase, which was shown to be positively correlated with FeNO values (r = 0.3147; p &lt; 0.01).

Conclusion

Our results consolidate the strategic position of dupilumab in its role as an excellent therapeutic option currently available within the context of modern biological treatments of severe asthma and CRSwNP, frequently driven by type 2 airway inflammation.

Criteria to evaluate efficacy of biologics in asthma: a Global Asthma Association survey

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no universally accepted criteria to measure the response to biologics available as treatment for severe asthma. This survey aims to establish consensus criteria to use for the evaluation of response to biologics after 4 months of treatment.

METHOD

Using Delphi methodology, a questionnaire including 10 items was validated by 13 international experts in asthma. The electronic survey circulated within the Interasma Scientific Network platform. For each item, five answers were proposed graduated from 'no importance' to 'very high importance' and by a score (A = 2 points; B = 4 points; C = 6 points; D = 8 points; E = 10 points). The final criteria were selected if the median score for the item was ≥7 and > 60% of responses according 'high importance' and 'very high importance'. All selected criteria were validated by the experts.

RESULTS

Four criteria were identified: reduce daily systemic corticosteroids dose by ≥50%; decrease the number of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids by ≥50%; have no/minimal side effects; and obtain asthma control according validated questionnaires. The consensual decision was that ≥3 criteria define a good response to biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific criteria were defined by an international panel of experts and could be used as tool in clinical practice.

Defining response to therapy with biologics in severe asthma: from global evaluation to super response and remission

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, monoclonal antibodies targeting Type-2 inflammatory pathways have been developed for severe asthma treatment. However, even when patients are carefully selected, the response to treatment varies.

AREAS COVERED

Different studies have evaluated response to therapy with biologics such as exacerbation reduction, symptom improvement, pulmonary function increase, improvement in QoL, or decrease of oral corticosteroids, showing that all patients do not respond to all disease aspects and leading to an extensive debate regarding the definition of response.

EXPERT OPINION

Assessing response to therapy is of great importance, but since there is no uniform definition of treatment response, the recognition of patients who really benefit from these therapies remains an unmet need. In the same context, identifying non-responding patients in which biologic therapy should be switched or substituted by alternative treatment options is of paramount importance. In this review, we present the road trip of the definition of therapeutic response to biologics in severe asthmatics by presenting the current relevant medical literature. We also present the suggested predictors of response, with an emphasis on the so-called super-responders. Finally, we discuss the recent insights regarding asthma remission as a feasible treatment goal and provide a simple algorithm for the evaluation of response.