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

Predictive model to differentiate chronic histaminergic angioedema and chronic spontaneous urticaria with angioedema

Background

Chronic histaminergic angioedema (CHA) may be classified as a separate acquired angioedema (AE) or as an endotype of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). A recent study suggested them to be independent pathologies.

Objective

We carried out an exhaustive analysis between CHA and AE-CSU to explore the possible differentiation between them on the bases of a series of predictors.

Methods

An observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, and exploratory study was designed. Fifty-six CHA and 40 AE-CSU patients were included. Data were extracted from the year before and year after time of diagnosis. A predictive model was generated by logistic regression, and its discriminatory power was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

The average frequency of AE attacks per year turned out to be higher in the AE-CSU group than in the CHA group, both before (median [interquartile range] 12 [43] vs 8 [16]) and after (24.3 [51.2] vs 2 [4.25]) diagnosis, respectively. The uvula was more frequently affected in CHA. No other differences were found. However, using 7 clinical characteristics of the patients, a multiple logistic regression model was able to predict, with a specificity of 86.4%, a sensitivity of 92.3%, and an area under the curve of 95.1% (P = .024), that CHA and AE-CSU behaved differently.

Conclusion

CHA has similar characteristics to AE-CSU, although they slightly differed in the frequency of attacks and their location. Despite its similarities, a multiple logistic regression model that used clinical and evolutionary characteristics allowed the differentiation of both pathologies and supports the idea that these 2 entities are independent.

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

Patient and physician perspectives on biological treatment in severe asthma: a Severe Asthma Network Italy survey

Patients with severe asthma perceive beneficial effects of biologics and good self-reported adherence to treatment, even when self-administered at home https://bit.ly/48vP70w.

Personalized Medicine in Asthma: Current Approach and Future Perspectives

Asthma is one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases, affecting over 300 million people worldwide [...].

Barrier Factors of Adherence to Dupilumab Self-Injection for Severe Allergic Disease: A Non-Interventional Open-Label Study

PURPOSE

The status of dupilumab self-injection at home is not well understood. We therefore aimed to identify the barriers to adherence to dupilumab self-injection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This non-interventional open-label study was conducted between March 2021 and July 2021. Patients with atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps receiving dupilumab, from 15 sites, were requested to complete a self-administered questionnaire regarding the frequency and effectiveness of dosing as well as their use and satisfaction with dupilumab. Barriers to adherence were assessed using the Adherence Starts with Knowledge-12.

RESULTS

We included 331 patients who used dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (n = 164), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (n = 102), and bronchial asthma (n = 65). The median efficacy of dupilumab scored 9.3 on the visual analog scale. Overall, 85.5% of the patients self-injected dupilumab, and 70.7% perfectly complied with the established injection dates. The pre-filled pen was significantly superior to the conventional syringe in terms of usability, operability, ease of pushing the plunger, and patient satisfaction. However, the pre-filled pen caused more pain during self-injection than did the syringe. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that adherence decreased with longer dupilumab treatment duration (p = 0.017) and was not associated with age, sex, underlying disease, or device type. There was a difference in responses related to "inconvenience/forgetfulness" between the good and poor adherence groups.

CONCLUSION

The pre-filled dupilumab pen was superior to the syringe in terms of usability, operability, ease of pushing the plunger, and satisfaction. Repetitive instructions are recommended for preventing poor adherence to dupilumab self-injection.

Bronchial Asthma as a Cardiovascular Risk Factor: A Prospective Observational Study

Introduction: Asthma as a chronic inflammatory disorder has been suggested as a risk factor for endothelial dysfunction (ED), but studies on the association between asthma and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk are limited. Background: We assessed associations of ED with the severity of asthma, eosinophilic inflammation, lung function, and asthma control. Methods: 52 young asthmatics (median age of 25.22 years) and 45 healthy individuals were included. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings were recorded. We evaluated microvascular responsiveness by recording the reactive hyperemia index (RHI) indicating post-occlusive peripheral endothelium-dependent changes in vascular tone using the Itamar Medical EndoPAT2000. VCAM-1, ADMA, high-sensitive CRP (hsCRP), and E-selectin were measured. Results: Asthmatics had considerably lower RHI values (p < 0.001) with a dynamic decreasing trend by asthma severity and higher hsCRP levels (p < 0.001). A substantial increase in hsCRP and E-selectin with asthma severity (p < 0.05) was also observed. We confirmed a higher body mass index (BMI) in asthmatics (p < 0.001), especially in women and in severe asthma. Conclusions: We demonstrated the progression of CVD in asthmatics and the association of the ongoing deterioration of ED with the inflammatory severity, suggesting that the increased risk of CVD in young asthmatics is dependent on disease severity. The underlying mechanisms of risk factors for CVD and disease control require further study.

Factors Related to Biologic Adherence and Outcomes Among Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Adherence barriers to asthma biologics may not be uniform across administration settings for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in asthma biologic adherence and associated factors, as well as association with a 1-year all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, across administration settings.

METHODS

A retrospective study of biologic naïve moderate-to-severe asthma patients with initial biologic therapy between January 1, 2016, and April 30, 2020, in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart was performed. Three administration settings were identified: Clinic-only (outpatient office/infusion center), Home (self-administration), and Hybrid setting (mixture of clinic and self-administration). Asthma biologic adherence was the proportion of observed over expected biologic dose administrations received within 6 months from initial therapy. Factors associated with adherence were identified by administration setting, using Poisson regression analyses. A relationship between a 1-year all-cause ED visit and adherence was assessed for each administration setting using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 3932 patients. Biologics adherence was 0.75 [0.5, 1] in Clinic setting, the most common administration setting, and 0.83 [0.5, 1] in both Home and Hybrid settings. Specialist access was consistently associated with better biologic adherence, whereas Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, lower education, Medicare only insurance, and higher patient out-of-pocket cost were associated with worse biologic adherence in some settings. In the Hybrid setting, hazard for a 1-year all-cause ED visit decreased with biologic adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma biologic adherence varied by administration setting. Efforts to improve asthma biologic adherence should consider promoting self-administration when beneficial, improving prior specialist access, and targeting patients with higher risk of suboptimal adherence particularly Black and Hispanic patients.

Severe non-atopic asthma: omalizumab can reduce severe asthma exacerbations

Introduction: Humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) has demonstrated efficacy in severe atopic asthma. However, few studies have assessed its efficacy in non-atopic and even less in T2-low severe asthma. The objective was to determinate the omalizumab response according to atopic status.Methods: This retrospective, real-world study was performed in the Chest Diseases Department of Strasbourg University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2017. The response to omalizumab was assessed in 139 patients 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment and compared to data collected prior to omalizumab initiation.Results: Forty-four patients (31.7%) had severe non-atopic asthma and 95 (68.3%) had a severe atopic asthma. In the non-atopic group, omalizumab significantly reduced the severe exacerbation rate by 44% (95% CI 18-64%, p < 0.05), 43% (CI 95% 20-60%, p < 0.05), and 54% (CI 95% 36-67%, p < 0.05), at 4, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A trend toward improvement in FEV1, asthma control and oral corticosteroid use was also observed. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in atopic asthmatics except a more effective oral corticosteroid sparing in atopic group (p < 0.05). Similar reduction of severe exacerbation rates were observed in T2-low asthma subgroup (non-atopic, non-eosinophilic).Conclusion: Omalizumab was effective in severe asthma, regardless of atopic status.

Economic burden of severe asthma treatment: A real-life study

Background

Individuals with severe asthma represent 5%–10% of the general asthmatic population. Despite the use of biologic drugs during clinical management, inadequate control of the disease has translated into high economic impact. In Mexico, however, these costs have not yet been assessed.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was carried out in 2018 and 2019 at Regional Hospital Lic. Adolfo López Mateos, ISSSTE. The assessment of direct costs included pharmacological treatment, clinical tests, days of hospitalization, admissions to the emergency room, and scheduled consultations. The evaluation involved 2 groups of patients—with controlled severe asthma (CSA) and uncontrolled severe asthma (UCSA)—according to presence of exacerbations.

Results

60 patients (18–75 years old, 51 women) were included in the study. In 2018, 23 of them (38.3%) were categorized as belonging to the UCSA group; in 2019, 22 patients (36.7%) were in this condition (exacerbations: median = 1.5, maximum = 6). Of the 60 patients, 12 (20%) presented between 2 and 9 exacerbations in the study's two-year period (median = 3) after between 4 and 10 years (median = 7.8) of complementary anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) therapy with omalizumab. The cost for all patients in the 2018–2019 period was 993,289.60 USD. The mean cost per patient was higher for those with UCSA (16,392 USD) than for those with CSA (16,246 USD, p = 0.02). We found a positive association between cost and exacerbations, with an increase of 350 USD per exacerbation (p˂0.0001). Our results indicate that 62% of patients respond to complementary anti-IgE treatment, while 38%—and especially 20%—do not respond optimally to this treatment.

Conclusions

Poor asthma control in this latter group of 38% of patients leads to lower quality of life and higher costs associated with pharmacological treatment.

[Therapeutic adherence among asthma patients: Variations according to age groups. How can it be improved? The potential contributions of new technologies]

While asthma patients' treatment adherence (TA) generally leaves to be desired, few data exist on TA evolution from age group to another. During the meeting of a working group of pneumo-pediatricians and adult pulmonologists, we reviewed the literature on adherence according to age group, examined explanations for poor adherence, and explored ways of improving adherence via new technologies. Asthma is a chronic disease for which TA is particularly low, especially during adolescence, but also among adults. Inhaled medications are the least effectively taken. Several explanations have been put forward: cost and complexity of treatments, difficulties using inhalation devices, poor understanding of their benefits, erroneous beliefs and underestimation of the severity of a fluctuating disease, fear of side effects, neglect, and denial (especially among teenagers). Poor TA is associated with risks of needless treatment escalation, aggravated asthma with frequent exacerbations, increased school absenteeism, degraded quality of life, and excessive mortality. Better compliance is based on satisfactory relationships between caregivers and asthmatics, improved caregiver training, and more efficient transmission to patients of relevant information. The recent evolution of innovative digital technologies opens the way for enhanced communication, via networks and dedicated applications, and thanks to connected inhalation devices, forgetfulness can be limited. Clinical research will also help to ameliorate TA. Lastly, it bears mentioning that analysis of the existing literature is hampered by differences in terms of working definitions and means of TA measurement.

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 and IgE in the Control of Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab, a human immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 antibody against IgE, is a therapeutic agent for bronchial asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines indicate that the use of omalizumab should be considered as an option in step 5 of treatment for patients with the most severe type of bronchial asthma. In patients with atopic asthma who are at a high risk of exacerbation, and in whom symptoms are poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, omalizumab is one of the few drugs that improves symptoms, reduces the risk of exacerbation, and improves the quality of life while offering a high level of safety. On the other hand, the associated treatment costs are high, and there are no clear methods to identify responders. A recent study suggested that evaluating the therapeutic effects and monitoring the pharmacokinetics of omalizumab could improve the success of omalizumab therapy. This review outlines the relationship between IgE-targeted therapy and the serum level of IgE to enhance the current understanding of the mechanism of omalizumab therapy. It also describes the clinical significance of measuring serum free IgE levels and monitoring omalizumab therapy.

Characteristics of new adult users of mepolizumab with asthma in the USA

BACKGROUND

In the USA, over 25 million people have asthma; 5%-10% of cases are severe. Mepolizumab (Nucala) is an interleukin-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody; it was approved by the FDA in 2015 as add-on maintenance treatment of severe asthma for patients aged ≥12 years with an eosinophilic phenotype.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Describe baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of new US adult mepolizumab users 2015-2019, (2) describe asthma medication use in the 12 months preceding initiation of and concomitant with mepolizumab and (3) assess mepolizumab adherence, persistence and discontinuation patterns in 12 months postinitiation.

METHODS

We conducted a new-user observational cohort study using data from Aetna, a CVS Health Company, HealthCore (Anthem), Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Curated administrative claims data in the FDA Sentinel System common data model format and publicly available Sentinel analytical tools were used to query the databases. We included adults who initiated mepolizumab in 2015-2019 with an asthma diagnosis in the preceding 12 months and no evidence of cystic fibrosis. We examined age, sex, comorbid conditions, asthma medication use and severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

We identified 3496 adults (mean age 54.2 years, SD 12.5 years) who initiated mepolizumab. In the 12 months before mepolizumab initiation, 22% had received inhaled corticosteroids, 46% had inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonists, 72.6% had leukotriene antagonists, 38% had long-acting muscarinic antagonist, 18% had omalizumab,<1% had reslizumab, dupilumab or benralizumab. In the previous 12 months, 70% had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, 32% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17% eosinophilia and 3% eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Further, 56% had an asthma-related ambulatory visit, 73%≥1 course of oral corticosteroids lasting 3-27 days, 10% an asthma-related emergency department visit and 22% an asthma-related hospitalisation. In the 12 months following initiation, the mean proportion of days covered was 70%, and reductions in the average mean dispensings of rescue oral corticosteriods (35%) and omalizumab (61%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with asthma treated with mepolizumab had varying levels of healthcare utilisation and we observed evidence of mepolizumab use in patients without severe asthma.

Acceptance and Results of Therapy with Omalizumab in Real world Kerala setting - Reports from the ARTWORK study, Kerala, South India

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of effective medications, only a minority of asthma patients achieve guideline defined asthma control. Treatment success depends on patient concurrence to the prescribed drug and adherence to treatment. It is therefore crucial to identify the patient preferences as well as attitudes towards asthma medications. Omalizumab is recommended as a preferred option in step five of asthma therapy. There have been few studies to address patient perspectives on omalizumab therapy in India.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Patients with inadequate asthma control were considered for the study. Systematic evaluation was done to identify and correct modifiable factors that can worsen asthma control. Patients with persisting poor asthma control who were deemed suitable to receive this agent were evaluated with their attitudes towards acceptance or refusal and the reasons for opting out were noted. The patients who received omalizumab were followed up to determine the results of treatment and duration of adherence to therapy.

RESULTS

35 patients out of 51 patients chose to avoid this drug. The reasons for opting out included erroneous perception of optimal asthma control, cost of therapy, and concern about adverse effects. Patients took omalizumab for a median duration of 6 months. Improved asthma control and decreased frequency of exacerbation was noted in all patients which persisted during the six month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of patients needing step five therapy opt out of omalizumab. Cost of drug, duration of therapy and erroneous perception of good asthma control account for refusing treatment. Omalizumab affords excellent clinical benefits to patients who receive it, and the benefits extend beyond the duration of therapy.

[Compliance with biologic agents: Current situation]

Despite the fact that the prognosis of chronic inflammatory disorders is improved by biological agents, compliance with those therapeutics remains imperfect. Compliance corresponds to the measurable part of the follow-up of the medical prescription by the patient, whereas adherence is related to the acceptation of the treatment by the patient. The compliance rates of biologic agents are generally higher than those of conventional therapies. Compliance can be influenced by the real or experienced efficacity of the treatment, by patient-related factors or by the patient-physician relationship. An increase of compliance is associated with an improvement of adherence. To achieve this, the physician can use educational measures such as patient education, which allows the identification of poor adherence. Such programs have been shown to improve the patient's knowledge of the disease and treatment leading to better adherence and compliance.

Real-World Experience with Dupilumab in Severe Asthma: One-Year Data from an Italian Named Patient Program

INTRODUCTION

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4Rα recently licensed for severe asthma (SA). A Named Patients Program (NPP) was created in Italy before its commercial availability for SA patients with no other available therapeutic options. We aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab in patients with SA and unmet needs.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre retrospective study, including SA patients admitted to the NPP treated with dupilumab for 12 months. Data on the number of exacerbations, Asthma Control Test (ACT), pre-bronchodilator FEV1%, oral corticosteroids (OCSs) use, FeNO and eosinophils count in peripheral blood were recorded at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

We included 18 SA patients (mean age 53.3±12.4 years, 66.7% female). Eleven (61.1%) were OCSs dependent. Five patients (27.8%) received previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents. A significant improvement in ACT score (from 15.7±5.1 to 18.8±4.8, p=0.023), OCSs intake [10 (5-25) mg/day to 0 (0-5) mg/day, p=0.0333] and FeNO [from 25 (20-80) ppb to 21 (10.9-55.3) ppb, p=0.0190] was already detected after 3 months of treatment. After 12 months, a statistically significant decrease in the number of exacerbations from 2 (0-3) to 0 (0-1) (p<0.0068) and increase in FEV1% from 73.5±19.5% to 87.1±19.2% (p=0.0407) and ACT to a mean value of 22.4±1.7 (p<0.0001) and the interruption of OCSs in all the patients (p<0.0001) was observed. A transient increase in the eosinophil count was observed in five patients (above 1000 cells/μL in 2 cases) after 3 months, without any clinical effect.

CONCLUSION

Dupilumab improved all the explored clinical outcomes after 12 months, and the transient hypereosinophilia did not modify treatment response. These real-world data confirm the results reported in randomized controlled trials and provide an important opportunity to characterize the clinical impact of the treatment in a non-trial setting. Further real-world studies with a larger cohort of patients are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Little is known about adherence to asthma biologics.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with subsequent asthma biologic adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed individuals with asthma who started asthma biologics in the OptumLab Data Warehouse and used that data until October 2019. We calculated proportion days covered (PDC) for ICS ± long-acting β-agonists in the 6 months before and after asthma biologics were started and asthma biologic PDC for the first 6 months of use. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75, ICS PDC ≥0.75 during the 6-month period after asthma biologic were started, and achievement of a ≥50% reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use.

RESULTS

We identified 5,319 people who started asthma biologics. The mean PDC for asthma biologics was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75-0.77) in the first 6 months after starting, higher than the mean PDCs for ICS in the 6 months before (0.44 [95% CI, 0.43-0.45]) and after (0.40 [95% CI, 0.39-0.40]) starting the asthma biologic. PDC ≥0.75 for ICS 6 months before index biologic use is associated with PDC for asthma biologics ≥0.75 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) and for ICS during the first 6 months of biologic use (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 8.55-11.53). Neither ICS PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14) nor asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36) is associated with a statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use among people with any exacerbation in the 6 months before first use.

INTERPRETATION

Adherence to asthma biologic is higher than to ICS and is associated with different factors.

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.