Omalizumab is effective in the long-term control of severe allergic asthma

Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Six biologic agents are now approved for patients with severe asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of licensed biologic agents in patients with severe asthma, including the recently approved tezepelumab.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify randomised controlled trials involving licensed biologics until 31 January 2023. We used random-effects meta-analysis models for efficacy, including subgroup analyses by individual agents and markers of T2-high inflammation (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide), and assessed safety.

RESULTS

48 studies with 16 350 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Biologics were associated with a 44% reduction in the annualised rate of asthma exacerbations (rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.62) and 60% reduction of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60), a mean increase in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 0.11 L (95% CI 0.09-0.14), a reduction in asthma control questionnaire by 0.34 points (95% CI -0.46--0.23) and an increase in asthma quality of life questionnaire by 0.38 points (95% CI 0.26-0.49). There was heterogeneity between different classes of biologics in certain outcomes, with overall greater efficacy in patients with T2 inflammation. Overall, biologics exhibited a favourable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that licensed asthma biologics reduce exacerbations and hospitalisations, improve lung function, asthma control and quality of life, and limit the use of systemic corticosteroids, with a favourable safety profile. These effects are more prominent in patients with evidence of T2 inflammation.

The clinical efficacy of type 2 monoclonal antibodies in eosinophil-associated chronic airway diseases: a meta-analysis

Background

Anti-type 2 inflammation therapy has been proposed as a treatment strategy for eosinophil-associated chronic airway disorders that could reduce exacerbations and improve lung function. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of type 2 monoclonal antibodies (anti-T2s) for eosinophil-associated chronic airway disorders.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 21 August 2022. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of anti-T2s versus placebo in the treatment of chronic airway diseases were selected. The outcomes were exacerbation rate and change in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) from baseline. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 1.0 was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the random-effects or fixed-effect model were used to pool the data.

Results

Thirty-eight articles concerning forty-one randomized clinical trials with 17,115 patients were included. Compared with placebo, anti-T2s therapy yielded a significant reduction in exacerbation rate in COPD and asthma (Rate Ratio (RR)=0.89, 95%CI, 0.83-0.95, I2 = 29.4%; RR= 0.59, 95%CI, 0.52-0.68, I2 = 83.9%, respectively) and improvement in FEV1 in asthma (Standard Mean Difference (SMD)=0.09, 95%CI, 0.08-0.11, I2 = 42.6%). Anti-T2s therapy had no effect on FEV1 improvement in COPD (SMD=0.05, 95%CI, -0.01-0.10, I2 = 69.8%).

Conclusion

Despite inconsistent findings across trials, anti-T2s had a positive overall impact on patients' exacerbation rate in asthma and COPD and FEV1 in asthma. Anti-T2s may be effective in treating chronic airway illnesses related to eosinophils.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022362280.

Therapeutical Targets in Allergic Inflammation

From the discovery of IgE to the in-depth characterization of Th2 cells and ILC2, allergic inflammation has been extensively addressed to find potential therapeutical targets. To date, omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, and dupilumab, an anti-IL-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody, represent two pillars of biologic therapy of allergic inflammation. Their increasing indications and long-term follow-up studies are shaping the many different faces of allergy. At the same time, their limitations are showing the intricate pathogenesis of allergic diseases.

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Biologics in severe asthma: Outcomes in clinical trials-Similarities and differences

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is a heterogenous disease characterized by multiple phenotypes. Targeted biologic therapies have revolutionarily changed the management of severe asthma by affecting various clinical outcomes, mainly by reducing exacerbations and the use of maintenance corticosteroids, but also by improving lung function and patient quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of different biologics in improving the above outcomes. However, no head-to-head studies exist to compare their efficacy and many patients with severe asthma are eligible for more than one biologic agent. In this review, we present the effect of various biologics in the various outcomes as shown in randomized controlled trials and discuss their similarities and differences.

EXPERT OPINION

Both the initial choice of a biologic as well as the option of switching to another give the clinician an interesting but also difficult decision when choosing a biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma. This decision is mainly based on the individual characteristics of the patient, especially rate of exacerbations and use of systemic corticosteroids, but is also influenced by the presence of comorbidities and lung function impairment. No safety concerns have been raised around the use of these biologics.

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.

Improvement of Bronchial Immune Hypersensitivity Reaction Using Extracts from Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramatuelle and Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi

Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramatuelle and Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi (skullcap) have been used as safe raw materials for drinking or as traditional medicines in Korea. In this study, we investigated the potential therapeutic effects of ovalbumin-induced asthma in a mouse model. After establishing the model, mice were treated with a mixture of chrysanthemum and skullcap extracts at different mixing ratios (6 : 4, 7 : 3, and 8 : 2). Immune cell counts and the production of various inflammatory cytokines were measured using biochemical tests. Among the mixtures tested, the 7 : 3 ratio (CS73) showed the most pronounced effects. CS73 significantly reduced the levels of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin- (IL-) 1β, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-17F, and IL-17E in the serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of asthmatic mice. In addition, CS73 treatment significantly increased the production of IL-2 and interferon-γ and decreased the production of immunoglobulin E, histamine, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin in asthmatic mice compared to the control group. Our results suggest that the combination of chrysanthemum and skullcap extracts, especially at a 7 : 3 ratio, can be used to improve bronchial health and contribute to improved public health.

Efficacy predictors of omalizumab in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: Findings from a post-hoc analysis of a randomised phase III study

Background

Omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy as an add-on therapy in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This post-hoc analysis assessed the potential predictors for the efficacy of omalizumab in these patients.

Methods

A post-hoc analysis was performed on a Phase III, randomised, controlled study conducted in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma (NCT01202903). We evaluated if levels of pre-treatment serum total immunoglobulin-E (IgE) and blood eosinophil (EOS), asthma severity, allergen profile, history of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), and free IgE level during omalizumab treatment were predictive of omalizumab's efficacy.

Results

This analysis included 608 patients (omalizumab, N = 306; placebo, N = 302). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) scores with omalizumab treatment compared with placebo were observed in patients with baseline IgE levels ≥76 IU/mL (irrespective of the EOS count). Relatively greater improvements with omalizumab treatment was also noted in patients with both moderate or severe allergic asthma (regardless of asthma severity), and patients sensitised to >3 allergens and with a history of PAR. All patients who were treated with omalizumab achieved free IgE levels below 50 ng/mL by Week 1. Similar clinical outcomes were observed in the subset of patients who achieved free IgE levels of <25 and ≥ 25 ng/mL.

Conclusions

In Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, baseline IgE and allergen profile (number/PAR history) are potential predictors of treatment response to omalizumab.

Trial registration

NCT01202903 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Indirect comparison of efficacy of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab for severe type 2 asthma

This indirect comparison of dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab for patients with severe type 2 asthma fulfilling start-up criteria for more than one drug shows no significant efficacy differences https://bit.ly/3pK9Nf9.

Use of Health Related Quality of Life in Clinical Trials for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Asthma Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is an outcome important to patients with severe asthma and can provide clinicians with additional insight into the benefits of treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the use and reporting of HRQoL questionnaires within randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics, fevipiprant and bronchial thermoplasty.

METHODS

We followed the guidelines on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Of the 2380 retrieved articles, 52 studies were identified for inclusion.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent included an asthma HRQoL questionnaire. It was a secondary outcome in the majority of cases (73%). The proportion of studies including an asthma HRQoL questionnaire did not change significantly over a 20-year period. While the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was used in 45% of studies, 55% used a variety of 4 questionnaires. Most (70%) of the studies that included a HRQoL questionnaire did not report its subscale scores. Approximately half (52%) of studies that used HRQoL reported this in the abstract of the paper. A higher proportion of studies used an asthma control questionnaire compared to a HRQoL questionnaire (71% vs 63%).

CONCLUSION

In order to increase the use of asthma HRQoL questionnaires in RCTs of severe asthma treatments, the drivers and barriers to their use must first be understood. At present, the patients' perspective is underrepresented in RCTs of biologics, fevipiprant and bronchial thermoplasty for severe asthma.

EAACI Biologicals Guidelines-Recommendations for severe asthma

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity, co-morbidities, complexity in care pathways and differences between national or regional healthcare systems. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of severe asthma, supporting the use of targeted treatments with biologicals. However, there are still many issues that require further clarification. These include selection of a certain biological (as they all target overlapping disease phenotypes), the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its cost-effectiveness. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of biologicals in severe asthma follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each biological and each outcome. In addition, a management algorithm for the use of biologicals in the clinic is proposed, together with future approaches and research priorities.

DESTINATION: a phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of tezepelumab in adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma

Background

Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the activity of the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin. The efficacy, safety and oral corticosteroid-sparing potential of tezepelumab are being investigated in two ongoing, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (NAVIGATOR [NCT03347279] and SOURCE [NCT03406078]). DESTINATION (NCT03706079) is a long-term extension (LTE) of these studies.

Methods

DESTINATION is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled LTE study in adults (18–80 years old) and adolescents (12–17 years old) with severe, uncontrolled asthma who are receiving treatment with medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus at least one additional controller medication with or without oral corticosteroids. The study population will comprise patients who complete the 52- and 48-week NAVIGATOR and SOURCE studies, respectively. Patients who were randomized to receive tezepelumab 210 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) in either predecessor study will continue to receive this regimen for 1 year; those who were previously randomized to receive placebo will be re-randomized (1:1) to receive either tezepelumab 210 mg Q4W or placebo for 1 year. Patients will receive their prescribed controller medications throughout DESTINATION and study physicians will have the opportunity to down- or up-titrate dosage of these medications, if appropriate. The primary objective is to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of tezepelumab over 104 weeks (inclusive of the treatment period of either predecessor study). The secondary objective is to assess the long-term effect of tezepelumab on asthma exacerbations. Patients recruited from SOURCE will be followed up post-treatment for 12 weeks. Patients recruited from NAVIGATOR who complete 100 weeks of tezepelumab treatment will be eligible for either 12 weeks of follow-up or a 36-week extended follow-up during which the clinical benefit of tezepelumab after treatment cessation will be investigated.

Discussion

DESTINATION will evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of tezepelumab versus placebo with continued dosing for up to 2 years. DESTINATION will also evaluate the clinical effect of tezepelumab after treatment cessation. This LTE study aims to elucidate the long-term safety implications of receiving tezepelumab and to assess its potential long-term treatment benefits in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Trial registration

NCT03706079 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered 15 October 2018.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Allergic Diseases

The introduction of specific humanized monoclonal antibodies over the past 20 years has dramatically changed the treatment of allergic diseases. At present, 5 mAbs are licensed for treating moderate to severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Given the high costs of biologics, understanding their cost-effectiveness is critical. As new biologics are developed and new indications are approved for existing biologics, the use of biologics for allergic diseases will increase. Conducting cost-effectiveness evaluations in parallel to efficacy and effectiveness trials will help patients, providers, payers, and policymakers in decision making.

Efficacy of omalizumab in children, adolescents, and adults with severe allergic asthma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and call for new trials using current guidelines for assessment of severe asthma

Background

Omalizumab is approved for treating severe allergic asthma from age 6, but the definition of severe asthma including a systematic assessment to rule out difficult-to-treat asthma has changed since the drug was approved in 2003.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of two critical (exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment) and eight important clinical outcomes in children, adolescents and adults, and specifically searched papers for systematic assessment of severe asthma.

Results

Adults: seven studies (n = 2159) ascertaining exacerbation rate showing a 37% (95% CI 21–50) reduction in favor of omalizumab, larger than the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 25%. Only one open-label study (n = 82) was identified assessing the percentage of patients experiencing reduction of OCS-maintenance treatment showing a significantly greater decrease in the omalizumab group (− 45% vs. + 18.3%, p = 0.002). Children and adolescents: four studies (n = 1551) reported data on exacerbations (no meta-analysis conducted), showed overall improvements in exacerbation rate and some passed MCID. No OCS studies were identified. No included studies provided systematic assessment of severe asthma according to current guidelines.

Conclusions

Omalizumab provides clinically relevant improvements in exacerbation rate among children, adolescents, and adults and in OCS-reduction among adults. New studies incorporating a guideline-approached definition of severe asthma are warranted.

Infectious Complications of Biological and Small Molecule Targeted Immunomodulatory Therapies

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in our approach to therapeutic immunosuppression. We have moved from relying on broadly active traditional medications, such as prednisolone or methotrexate, toward more specific agents that often target a single receptor, cytokine, or cell type, using monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, or targeted small molecules. This change has transformed the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, cancers, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease, but along with the benefits have come risks. Contrary to the hope that these more specific agents would have minimal and predictable infectious sequelae, infectious complications have emerged as a major stumbling block for many of these agents. Furthermore, the growing number and complexity of available biologic agents makes it difficult for clinicians to maintain current knowledge, and most review articles focus on a particular target disease or class of agent. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge about infectious complications of biologic and small molecule immunomodulatory agents, aiming to create a single resource relevant to a broad range of clinicians and researchers. For each of 19 classes of agent, we discuss the mechanism of action, the risk and types of infectious complications, and recommendations for prevention of infection.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 - 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 - 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 - 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 -1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) -0.45 (95% CI -0.58 to -0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD -0.41 (95%CI -0.66 to -0.15)].

Biologics or immunotherapeutics for asthma?

Asthma is now recognised as a heterogenous inflammatory disease of the lung based on cellular infiltrates and transcriptional profiles of blood and airway cells. Four distinct subgroups have been defined, eosinophilic (T2), neutrophilic (T1), mixed eosinophilic/neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic. Patients can also be stratified at a molecular level into T2-high, T2-low and/or T1 based on their gene signatures. Current treatments for asthma have been centred on administration of steroids and/or bronchodilators for the relief of bronchoconstriction and inflammation. These treatments are not always effective and often have limited efficacy during exacerbations. Eosinophil expansion and homing to tissues, bronchoconstriction, IgE production and mucus hypersecretion (hallmark features of asthma) are regulated by the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, the latter of which can induce the expression of the eosinophil chemotactic factors CCL11 and CCL24. A number of new generation biologics (monoclonal antibodies) targeting pathways regulated by the T2 cytokines IL-5 and IL-4/13 (IL-4 receptor alpha) have yielded effective therapies for eosinophil induced exacerbations of severe asthma. Despite these advances, difficulties still remain in treating all exacerbations, and this may reflect the contribution of other inflammatory cells such as neutrophils to pathogenesis. This review describes the effectiveness of targeting T2 pathways, emerging approaches and identifies the potential next steps for therapeutic intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in real world uncontrolled allergic asthma patients

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab compared with standard of care in the treatment and control of severe persistent asthma, using the outcomes from the Portuguese subpopulation of the eXpeRience registry.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic cost-effectiveness analysis based on real world data from the eXpeRience registry which recruited 62 patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma from 20 participating centers in Portugal. Response to omalizumab treatment was measured prospectively up to 24 months by the physician's Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). Retrospective data on patients' clinical symptoms, asthma control, lung function, exacerbations, and healthcare utilization were available for up to 12 months before omalizumab initiation and served as the standard of care comparator. The number of exacerbations (severe and non-severe), the number of clinical episodes, the number of days absent from work and/or school, and GETE response to therapy were considered as effectiveness outcomes. Following a societal perspective, as cost indicators, both direct and indirect costs were considered. Direct costs relate to the cost of omalizumab, standard of care and clinical episodes (emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and unscheduled doctor visits). Indirect costs relate to the societal cost of work absenteeism. Unit costs for clinical episodes and drugs were taken from official sources within the Portuguese Health Authority. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A rate of 1.5 exacerbations per patient-year was estimated following omalizumab treatment compared with 8.2 exacerbations per patient-year prior to omalizumab initiation, implying an 82.1% reduction in the incidence of exacerbations following omalizumab treatment relative to standard of care alone. A 54.1% reduction in GETE score was also observed in favor of omalizumab treatment. The mean cost per person-year was 3023є in the 12 months of standard of care prior to omalizumab and 16,111є in the period of treatment with omalizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 2244є/exacerbation avoided, and 1750є/unit decrease in GETE classification.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that adding omalizumab to the treatment of patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma reduces the number of exacerbations, improving overall treatment effectiveness at an acceptable cost from a societal perspective.

Plasma Galectin-3 and urine proteomics predict FEV1 improvement in omalizumab-treated patients with severe allergic asthma: Results from the PROXIMA sub-study

Background

Patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) when treated with omalizumab may exhibit different extent of response. Identifying biomarkers that can predict the extent of treatment effectiveness in patients can be useful in personalizing omalizumab treatment.

Methods

Patients from the longitudinal phase of the PROXIMA study were selected for this ancillary study. After 12 months of omalizumab treatment, patients were categorized according to their response to treatment as: "clinical responder" (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] total score <1 at Month 12 and/or with a reduction in number of exacerbation versus the previous year); "functional responder" (an increment of ≥0.1 L in forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁] at Month 12 versus baseline); and "super responder" (among clinical responders group, who also showed a functional response). Plasma galectin-3 (GAL-3) levels were quantified using a micro titer plate-based enzyme linked immunosorbent assay kit.

Results

The Majority of patients (86.36%) in sub-study population were identified as clinical responders. Of the total patients identified as clinical responders, 64.86% were identified as super responders. A statistically significant difference in the baseline plasma GAL-3 levels between responders and non-responders was observed only in the functional responders group (P = 0.0446). Patients with plasma GAL-3 level of ≥11 ng/mL had a greater probability of being a super responder (P = 0.0118) or a functional responder (P = 0.0032).

Conclusion

Our findings support the use of plasma GAL-3 as a predictive marker to stratify responders and identify super responders and functional responders to omalizumab treatment in patients with severe allergic asthma using less invasive sample like plasma.

'Real-life' experience in asthmatic children treated with omalizumab up to six-years follow-up

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Omalizumab is present in international guidelines for the control of severe asthma, but data on the long-term effects in children are limited. Our objective was to perform a 'real-life' long-term trial of omalizumab in children with allergic asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational single center 'real-life' study was performed. Data for treatment, lung function, side effect, asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations were recorded at six months and annually.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients <18 years of age were enrolled. Median treatment period was 2.9 (0.5-6). Fluticasone dose for the maintenance treatment decreases significantly at six months (452mcg/day to 329.89mcg/day, respectively). This difference was maintained throughout the follow-up. Nobody used oral corticosteroid after six months. The rate of hospital admissions and visits to the emergency department for asthma exacerbations decreased significantly in the third years and fourth years follow-up, respectively. There was an improvement in lung function. Mean values of FEV₁ and FEF_25-75% before treatment were 79.88 and 62.94, respectively; after six months of treatment a statistically significant change was seen with a mean FEV₁ of 92.29 and FEF_25-75% of 76.31 (p=0.0001). Lung function values were above normal throughout the six years of treatment. No side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall in 'real life' omalizumab in children reduces asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, improves lung function, and decreases the maintenance therapy. It is shown to be safe for up to six years of treatment in children.

Inadequate assessment of adherence to maintenance medication leads to loss of power and increased costs in trials of severe asthma therapy: results from a systematic literature review and modelling study

Adherence to inhaled maintenance therapy in severe asthma is rarely adequately assessed, and its influence on trial outcomes is unknown. We systematically determined how adherence to maintenance therapy is assessed in clinical trials of "add-on" therapy for severe asthma. We model the improvement in trial power that could be achieved by accurately assessing adherence.A systematic search of six major databases identified randomised trials of add-on therapy for severe asthma. The relationship between measuring adherence and study outcomes was assessed. An estimate of potential improvements in statistical power and sample size was derived using digitally recorded adherence trial data.87 randomised controlled trials enrolling 22 173 participants were included. Adherence assessment was not reported in 67 trials (n=13 931, 63%). Studies that reported adherence used a range of self-report and subjective methods. None of the studies employed an objective assessment of adherence. Studies that reported adherence had a significantly reduced pooled variance in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) compared to those that did not assess adherence: s²=0.144 L² versus s²=0.168 L², p<0.0001. Power to detect clinically relevant changes in FEV₁ was significantly higher in trials that reported adherence assessment (mean power achieved 59% versus 49%). Modelling suggests that up to 50% of variance in FEV₁ outcomes is attributable to undetected variations in adherence. Controlling for such variations could potentially halve the required sample size.Few trials of add-on therapy monitor adherence to maintenance inhaled therapy, resulting in a greater variance in trial outcomes and inadequate power for determining efficacy.

Real-world safety and efficacy of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma: A long-term post-marketing study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab (anti-IgE monoclonal antibody) is an approved add-on therapy for Japanese patients with severe allergic asthma. As directed by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Japan, a post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study on omalizumab was conducted between 2009 and 2017.

METHODS

The PMS observed safety and efficacy of omalizumab in patients treated with open-label omalizumab for 52 weeks (with optional 2-year extension period). Primary safety outcomes included incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Primary efficacy outcomes included physician-assessed global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE). Asthma-exacerbation-related events including requirement for additional systemic steroid therapy, hospitalization, emergency room visits, unscheduled doctor visits, and absenteeism were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 3893 patients registered, 3620 (age [mean ± SD] 59.3 ± 16.11 years) were evaluated for 52 weeks; 44.12% were aged ≥65 years and 64.45% were women. Overall, 32.24% reported AEs and 15.30% reported serious AEs. ADRs were seen in 292 (8.07%) patients. GETE results showed that the majority of patients experienced clinical improvements (58.29% at 16 weeks and 62.40% at 52 weeks). Nearly half of all patients (47.96%) were free from asthma exacerbations after therapy. Omalizumab also reduced all events related to asthma exacerbations. No specific ADRs were observed in the elderly population.

CONCLUSIONS

This post-marketing study confirmed the clinically meaningful benefits of omalizumab in a majority of patients from Japan, and showed safety and efficacy in a real-life clinical setting to be consistent with previous reports.

A clinical follow-up of omalizumab in routine treatment of allergic asthma monitored by CD-sens

Introduction

Omalizumab has been available for treatment of allergic asthma for more than a decade and thus, its efficacy in routine treatment was of interest to evaluate. Basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD‐sens) has been shown to correlate with the bronchial allergen threshold sensitivity and can be used to objectively measure omalizumab treatment efficacy. We aimed to evaluate the effect of omalizumab treatment of allergic asthma by CD‐sens, as an objective marker of the IgE‐mediated inflammation, and related to SPT, spirometry, FeNO, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE).

Methods

Thirty‐two patients were treated with omalizumab for 16 weeks. CD‐sens was used to define the response and related to clinical parameters. If CD‐sens was negative (<0.1) (CD‐sens low Group) the patient continued with the standard dose. If CD‐sens was ≥0.1 (CD‐sens high Group) a second 16 weeks period with 25–50% dosage increase was started and evaluated after a total of 32 weeks.

Results

Nine of 32 patients became CD‐sens negative after treatment (CD‐sens start: 8.0; 16 weeks: <0.01) and regarded as successful. 15/23 were unsuccessful (CD‐sens start: 13; 16 weeks: 1.65) and the omalizumab dose was increased. CD‐sens decreased significantly (p < 0.05) and further 3/15 patients became CD‐sens negative (CD‐sens at 32 weeks: 0.5). There was a significantly smaller IgE‐ab fraction (IgE‐ab/IgE) in the CD‐sens low versus the CD‐sens high Group (p < 0.0001). A significant decrease in ACQ was seen in both groups after 16 weeks treatment (p = 0.05 and 0.01, respectively). No significant changes could be detected for the other clinical parameters.

Conclusion

By the use of the objective laboratory method CD‐sens, which effectively measure the direct effect of omalizumab, that is, the IgE‐mediated part of the allergic asthma, in combination with clinical parameters it might be possible to more effectively monitor and treat IgE‐mediated allergic asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

SOURCES

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

CONTENT

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

IMPLICATIONS

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

Guiding principles for use of newer biologics and bronchial thermoplasty for patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma poses significant disease-related and economic burdens in the United States. Challenges in practice include how to define "severe asthma" for a given patient, knowing which are the right tests to perform and when, and having a better understanding of a patient's asthma phenotype. Furthermore, current guidelines do not address a clear, practical approach to treatment that is based on a patient's asthma phenotype.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a consensus on the definition of severe asthma, the role of biomarkers and phenotyping severe asthma, and the use of newer biologic therapies and bronchial thermoplasty to help guide practicing clinicians.

METHODS

A roundtable meeting was convened with a panel of severe asthma experts to discuss areas in practice that are not adequately addressed by current guidelines, specifically phenotype-guided treatment.

RESULTS

We describe a consensus on the definition of severe asthma, asthma phenotyping with the use of available biomarkers, and guiding principles for newer biologic therapies and bronchial thermoplasty.

CONCLUSION

To optimize therapy and improve outcomes such as daily symptoms, quality of life, exacerbations, and hospitalizations, a clear picture of a patient's asthma phenotype is needed to guide therapy. Determining asthma phenotypes is the foundation of precision medicine for this persistent, often difficult-to-treat disease.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) measures, and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Predictors of response to therapy with omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma - a real life study

OBJECTIVES

Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized IgG1 monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, used for the treatment of severe refractory allergic asthma. However, not all patients with IgE levels within the limits of administration, respond to treatment. The aim of the present study, was to determine clinical and inflammatory characteristics that could predict response to omalizumab.

METHODS

We studied retrospectively patients treated with omalizumab as per GINA guidelines in one asthma tertiary referral center. Demographic and functional characteristics, level of asthma control, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, blood and eosinophils and IgE level, induced sputum cell count, eosinophil cationic protein and Interleukin-13 in sputum supernatant were recorded. All measurements were performed before starting treatment with omalizumab. Response to treatment was evaluated according to the physician's global evaluation of treatment effectiveness. Patients were characterized as early responders when improvement was achieved within 16 weeks and as late responders when improvement was achieved between 16 and 32 weeks. Patients who did not show any improvement after 32 weeks of therapy were considered as non-responders.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients treated with omalizumab were included in the study. 28 (68.3%) patients were characterized as responders while 13 patients (31.7%) were considered as non-responders. Among responders, 25 (89%) were early responders and 3 (n = 11%) were late responders. Responders were characterized by lower baseline FEV₁ and FEV₁/FVC and higher IL-13 levels in induced sputum supernatant compared to non-responders. Late responders had higher serum IgE levels, shorter disease duration and higher number of blood eosinophils. Finally, using ROC curve analysis, the best predictors of response to omalizumab were FEV₁ (AUC = 0.718) and IL-13 in sputum supernatant (AUC = 0.709).

CONCLUSION

Lower baseline FEV₁ and higher IL-13 levels in induced sputum supernatant were predictors of response to omalizumab. Patients with higher baseline serum IgE levels, shorter disease duration and higher blood eosinophils may experience a late response and might benefit from a more prolonged treatment before being characterized as non-responders.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe Persistent Asthma in Real Clinical Practice in Spain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets circulating immunoglobulin E molecules to treat severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of omalizumab compared with standard treatment for the control of severe persistent asthma according to data from patients treated in a specialized asthma unit.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study in the setting of the Pulmonology and Respiratory Allergy Service, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Data were collected by review of medical records of 86 uncontrolled severe persistent asthma patients treated with omalizumab from January 2005 to April 2014. Effectiveness was assessed by the reduction in asthma exacerbations and 3-point increases in the Asthma Control Test (ACT) score. The economic evaluation was performed from the societal perspective, including direct health costs (resource use and drug treatments) and indirect costs (disease impact on labor productivity) in 2016 Euros. The time horizon was 12 months before and after the initiation of treatment with omalizumab. Results were expressed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Taking into account only direct costs, the ICERs were €1487.46 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1241.21-1778.34) per exacerbation avoided and €5425.13 (95 % CI 4539.30-6551.03) per 3-point increase in the ACT. When indirect costs were included, the ICERs were €1130.93 (95 % CI 909.08-1392.86) per exacerbation avoided, and €4124.79 (95 % CI 3281.69-5186.73) per 3-point increase in the ACT.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm the effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy of omalizumab for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a subcutaneously administrated monoclonal anti-IgE antibody indicated in adults, adolescents and children 6 years of age and older with moderate to severe allergic asthma uncontrolled by conventional pharmacological treatments and sensitization to at least one perennial allergen. Area covered: This drug evaluation summarizes published data on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of omalizumab, on clinical efficacy and safety, including real-world evidence, and provides a medico-economic evaluation of the drug. Expert opinion: Omalizumab represents an efficient therapeutic option for the management of patients with uncontrolled moderate/severe allergic asthma. It provides a significant reduction in the asthma exacerbation rate with a steroid-sparing effect, an improvement in quality of life in adults and adolescents, despite a lack of evidence about its efficacy specifically in severe allergic asthma. Clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy in the pediatric population but further real-life evidence is expected to better characterize long-term effects in this population. There is still some debate about the optimal treatment duration but, to date, it is recommended not to stop the treatment as cessation has resulted in symptom recurrence. Omalizumab is an expensive treatment, but a key therapeutic option when used for uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Patient stratification and the unmet need in asthma

Asthma is often described as an inflammatory disease of the lungs and in most patients symptomatic treatment with bronchodilators or inhaled corticosteroids is sufficient to control disease. Unfortunately there are a proportion of patients who fail to achieve control despite treatment with the best current treatment. These severe asthma patients have been considered a homogeneous group of patients that represent the unmet therapeutic need in asthma. Many novel therapies have been tested in unselected asthma patients and the effects have often been disappointing, particularly for the highly specific monoclonal antibody-based drugs such as anti-IL-13 and anti-IL-5. More recently, it has become clear that asthma is a syndrome with many different disease drivers. Clinical trials of anti-IL-13 and anti-IL-5 have focused on biomarker-defined patient groups and these trials have driven the clinical progression of these drugs. Work on asthma phenotyping indicates that there is a group of asthma patients where T helper cell type 2 (Th2) cytokines and inflammation predominate and these type 2 high (T2-high) patients can be defined by biomarkers and response to therapies targeting this type of immunity, including anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-13. However, there is still a subset of T2-low patients that do not respond to these new therapies. This T2-low group will represent the new unmet medical need now that the T2-high-targeting therapies have made it to the market. This review will examine the current thinking on patient stratification in asthma and the identification of the T2-high subset. It will also look at the T2-low patients and examine what may be the drivers of disease in these patients.

The Therapeutic Potential of Targeting Cytokine Alarmins to Treat Allergic Airway Inflammation

Asthma is a heterogeneous disorder that results in recurrent attacks of breathlessness, coughing, and wheezing that affects millions of people worldwide. Although the precise causes of asthma are unclear, studies suggest that a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental exposure to various allergens and pathogens contribute to its development. Currently, the most common treatment to control asthma is a dual combination of β2-adrenergic receptor agonists and corticosteroids. However, studies have shown that some patients do not respond well to these medications, while others experience significant side effects. It is reported that the majority of asthmas are associated with T helper type 2 (TH2) responses. In these patients, allergen challenge initiates the influx of TH2 cells in the airways leading to an increased production of TH2-associated cytokines and the promotion of allergy-induced asthma. Therefore, biologics that target this pathway may provide an alternative method to treat the allergic airway inflammation associated with asthma. As of now, only two biologics (omalizumab and mepolizumab), which target immunoglobulin E and interleukin-5, respectively, are FDA-approved and being prescribed to asthmatics. However, recent studies have reported that targeting other components of the TH2 response also show great promise. In this review, we will briefly describe the immunologic mechanisms underlying allergic asthma. Furthermore, we will discuss the current therapeutic strategies used to treat asthma including their limitations. Finally, we will highlight the benefits of using biologics to treat asthma-associated allergic airway inflammation with an emphasis on the potential of targeting cytokine alarmins, especially thymic stromal lymphopoietin.

Omalizumab treatment in asthma-COPD overlap syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS) is a poorly understood disease with an increasing morbidity and mortality. Currently, the most effective treatment for ACOS is unknown and omalizumab for ACOS has not yet been reported.

METHODS

We report our experience with anti-IgE, omalizumab treatment on 3 patients with ACOS as a retrospective case study.

RESULTS

After 1 year of omalizumab treatment, patients experienced significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbation and hospitalization and better asthma control test results.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that omalizumab may be an effective and safe therapy for patients with ACOS. However larger randomized trials are needed.

In Utero exposure to genistein enhanced intranasal house dust mite allergen-induced respiratory sensitization in young adult B6C3F1 mice

Despite many hypothesized benefits of dietary isoflavone genistein (GEN) deriving from soy-based products, questions surrounding GEN's developmental immunotoxic effects are increasing. To understand how in utero GEN exposure may modulate postnatal respiratory sensitization, we conducted a time course study using a common household allergen (house dust mites: HDM; 10μg/mouse) following intranasal instillation, a physiological route of allergen exposure. GEN was administered to dams by gavage from gestational day 14 to parturition at a physiologically relevant dose (20mg/kg bw). Female and male offspring were sensitized with HDM allergens beginning about one month prior to sacrifice followed by challenges with three weekly doses of HDM extracts, and they were euthanized at day 3 following the final HDM exposure at four different time points (postnatal day (PND) 80, 120, 160, and 200). In utero GEN combined with postnatal HDM exposures (GEN+HDM) increased total IgE production in both young female and male B6C3F1 offspring (e.g., PND 80 in females and PND 120 in males). Increased antigen-specific IgG1, IgG2a and IgG2b levels were also observed at various time points in both female and male offspring. In addition, increases in macrophage number in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of both female and male GEN+HDM offspring at PND 80 and PND 120, respectively, were observed when compared to the vehicle group. For T cells, an increase over the vehicle in female GEN+HDM offspring was observed at PND 80. Due to similar patterns of increases, it seems likely that GEN+HDM-induced increases in total IgE and macrophages are related. Overall, in utero GEN plus later-life HDM exposures exert increases in total IgE and HDM-specific IgG production as well as macrophage recruitments to the lung in young adult mice.

Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 (IL-5), the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which in turn causes airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested these agents may have a role in reducing exacerbations and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There are no recommendations for the use of mepolizumab in adults or children in the recent update of the BTS/SIGN guidelines (BTS/SIGN 2014).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of mepolizumab with placebo on exacerbations and HRQoL in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR) of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and the reference lists of included studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 and updated in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies on 1707 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included children (over 12 years of age), but they did not report separate findings for the adolescents. Seven studies involved intravenous mepolizumab alone; one included a subcutaneous arm. There was heterogeneity in the severity and clinical pattern of asthma among the participants in the eight studies, varying from mild to moderate atopic asthma, to persistent asthma and eosinophilic asthma with recurrent exacerbations. Selection bias was a concern in several of the studies included in this review.Four trials compared intravenous mepolizumab to placebo in relation to HRQoL. Two studies measured scores from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which showed a non-significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 682), in the direction favouring mepolizumab. The third study used the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and found a significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.15 to 9.65; participants = 576), which indicated a clinically important benefit favouring mepolizumab. A fourth study noted that there was no significant difference but did not provide any data. The two studies in people with eosinophilic asthma showed a reduction in clinically significant exacerbation rates (Risk Ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; participants = 690). However, an analysis of four studies that were not confined to people with eosinophilic asthma indicated considerable heterogeneity and no significant difference in people with one or more exacerbations between mepolizumab and placebo using a random-effects model (Risk Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31; participants = 468; I(2) = 59%).The analysis of serious adverse events indicated a significant difference favouring mepolizumab (Risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; participants = 1441; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%). It was not possible to combine the results for adverse events, and we deemed the quality of this evidence to be low.A single study compared subcutaneous mepolizumab to placebo in 385 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma and found an improvement in HRQoL scores and a reduction in asthma exacerbations, including exacerbations requiring admission to hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from this review with respect to the role of mepolizumab in patients with asthma. Our confidence in the results of this review are limited by the fact that the intravenous route is not currently licensed for mepolizumab, and the evidence for the currently licenced subcutaneous route is limited to a single study in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma.The currently available studies provide evidence that mepolizumab can lead to an improvement in health-related quality of life scores and reduce asthma exacerbations in people with severe eosinophilic asthma.Further research is needed to clarify which subgroups of patients with asthma could potentially benefit from this treatment. Dosage, ideal dosing regimens and duration of treatment need to be clarified, as the studies included in this review differed in their protocols. There are no studies reporting results from children, so we cannot comment on treatment for this age group. At the present time, larger studies using licenced treatment regimens are required to establish the role of mepolizumab in the treatment of severe asthma.

Omalizumab for severe asthma: efficacy beyond the atopic patient?

Several years ago, omalizumab became commercially available for the treatment of severe asthma. It remains the only monoclonal antibody to be marketed for this purpose. Since then, many studies have been published endorsing its efficacy and effectiveness. Concomitantly, evidence of an overlap between atopic and non-atopic severe asthma has emerged. However, there also appears to be some disagreement regarding the value of omalizumab in the management of non-atopic disease, as some studies have failed to show any benefit in these patients. The recent literature has also sought to identify appropriate prognostic biomarkers for the use of omalizumab, other than immunoglobulin (IgE) levels. This article briefly summarizes the evolution of asthma treatment, the pathophysiology of the condition, and the method of action of omalizumab. The author describes the controlled and uncontrolled studies (also named "real-life studies") published in adult and pediatric populations in different countries and expresses his view on the current place of the drug in the management of severe allergic asthma. He offers a personal perspective on the recent evidence for the use of omalizumab in non-atopic patients, highlighting the implications for current clinical practice and the gaps in our knowledge. The author justifies his belief that omalizumab is not only an IgE-blocking drug and should be considered as a disease-modifying therapy because of its multiple effects on different biologic pathways. Finally, some areas for future research are indicated.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently, limited information is available to clinicians regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab treatment for allergic asthma. In this report, we aimed to (i) systematically review the evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma, and to (ii) discuss the cost-effectiveness evidence published for omalizumab in this patient population. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs; ≥52 weeks) was performed, and six studies met our final inclusion criteria (n = 2,749). Omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in quality of life and the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness. Omalizumab also allowed patients to completely withdraw from inhaled corticosteroid therapy and did not increase the overall incidence of adverse events. However, there was insufficient evidence that omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, and the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab varied across studies. Our data indicated that omalizumab use for at least 52 weeks in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma was accompanied by an acceptable safety profile, but it lacked effect on the asthma exacerbations. Use of omalizumab was associated with a higher cost than conventional therapy, but these increases may be cost-effective if the medication is used in patients with severe allergic asthma.

Omalizumab for severe allergic asthma in clinical trials and real-life studies: what we know and what we should address

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for the assessment of any therapeutic intervention. Real-life (R-L) studies are needed to verify the provided results beyond the experimental setting. This review aims at comparing RCTs and R-L studies on omalizumab in adult severe allergic asthma, in order to highlight the concurring results and the discordant/missing data. The results of a selective literature research, including "omalizumab, controlled studies, randomized trial, real-life studies" as key words are discussed. Though some similarities between RCTs and R-L studies strengthen omalizumab efficacy and safety outcomes, significant differences concerning study population features, follow-up duration, local adverse events and drop-out rate for treatment inefficacy emerge between the two study categories. Furthermore the comparative analysis between RCTs and R-L studies highlights the need for further research, concerning in particular long-term effects of omalizumab and its impact on asthma comorbidities.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in severe persistent asthma in Spain: a real-life perspective

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab compared with routine clinical practice in the treatment and control of severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis using pre- and post-treatment with omalizumab after 10 months of 47 patients diagnosed with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma attended by the Pneumology Service, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Malaga. Effectiveness was assessed by the number of emergency room (ER) visits for exacerbations and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The costs of treatment with omalizumab and ER visits were analyzed using the National Health System perspective. Results are expressed in cost per QALY gained and cost per ER visit avoided (costs €2012).

RESULTS

Exacerbations with ER visits decreased significantly (p < 0.001) after 10 months of omalizumab treatment compared with the previous 10 months [7.94 (6.52-9.37) vs 0.19 (0.03-0.35)]. Health utilities increased significantly (p < 0.001) during the same period [0.5967 (0.5722-0.6212) vs 0.7566 (0.7232-0.7900)], representing 0.1333 (0.1053-0.1612) QALYs gained (p < 0.001).The mean cost per patient was €1850.78 (1519.46-2182.10) in the 10 months before treatment and €5431.87 (4930.72-5933.02) after 10 months of omalizumab treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €462.08/exacerbation avoided (347.65-606.22) and €26 864.89/QALY gained (21 632.07-33 859.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that adding omalizumab to the treatment of patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma reduces the number of exacerbations with ER visits and increases health-related quality of life after 10 months of treatment and produces ICERs favorable to omalizumab and acceptable from the health system perspective.

Diagnosis and management of eosinophilic asthma: a US perspective

Eosinophilic asthma is now recognized as an important subphenotype of asthma based on the pattern of inflammatory cellular infiltrate in the airway. Eosinophilic asthma can be associated with increased asthma severity, atopy, late-onset disease, and steroid refractoriness. Induced sputum cell count is the gold standard for identifying eosinophilic inflammation in asthma although several noninvasive biomarkers, including fractional exhaled nitric oxide and periostin, are emerging as potential surrogates. As novel therapies and biologic agents become increasingly available, there is an increased need for specific phenotype-directed treatment strategies. Greater recognition and understanding of the unique immunopathology of this asthma phenotype has important implications for management of the disease and the potential to improve patient outcomes. The present review provides a summary of the clinical features, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of eosinophilic asthma.

Omalizumab: a review of its use in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma

Omalizumab (Xolair(®)) is a subcutaneously administered monoclonal antibody that targets circulating free IgE and prevents its interaction with the high-affinity IgE receptor (FCεRI), thereby interrupting the allergic cascade. In the EU, the drug is approved as add-on therapy in adults, adolescents and children aged ≥6 years with severe persistent allergic asthma. In well designed clinical trials, add-on omalizumab significantly reduced the asthma exacerbation rate (primary endpoint) compared with placebo in adults, adolescents and children with severe persistent allergic asthma. Furthermore, add-on omalizumab reduced the need for inhaled corticosteroids in adults and adolescents, and improved asthma control and symptoms, and asthma-related quality of life in all age groups. The efficacy of omalizumab was also demonstrated in the real-world setting, with add-on therapy leading to reduced rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits and unscheduled doctor's visits, as well as improvements in asthma symptom scores and the physician's overall assessment of treatment response. More data are needed to determine the optimum duration of treatment, and currently the duration is at the discretion of the treating physician. Omalizumab was generally well tolerated in clinical trials; the most common adverse event was transient injection-site reactions. In cost-utility analyses modelled over a life-time horizon, add-on omalizumab was cost effective compared with standard therapy, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios falling within generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Thus, in difficult-to-treat patients with severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab provides a valuable treatment option.

Omalizumab may decrease IgE synthesis by targeting membrane IgE+ human B cells

Background

Omalizumab, is a humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody used to treat allergic asthma. Decreased serum IgE levels, lower eosinophil and B cell counts have been noted as a result of treatment. In vitro studies and animal models support the hypothesis that omalizumab inhibits IgE synthesis by B cells and causes elimination of IgE-expressing cells either by induction of apoptosis or induction of anergy or tolerance.

Methods

We examined the influence of omalizumab on human tonsillar B cell survival and on the genes involved in IgE synthesis. Tonsillar B cells were stimulated with IL-4 plus anti-CD40 antibody to induce class switch recombination to IgE production in the presence or absence of omalizumab. Cell viability was assessed and RNA extracted to examine specific genes involved in IgE synthesis.

Conclusions

We found that omalizumab reduced viable cell numbers but this was not through induction of apoptosis. IL-4R and germline Cϵ mRNA levels were decreased as well as the number of membrane IgE+ cells in B cells treated with omalizumab. These data suggest that omalizumab may decrease IgE synthesis by human B cells by specifically targeting membrane IgE-bearing B cells and inducing a state of anergy.

Off-label use of omalizumab in non-asthma conditions: new opportunities

Allergic diseases are mediated by IgE and, hence, neutralizing IgE to attenuate type I hypersensitivity reactions may result in clinical benefits. This has been mainly established in several large pre- and postmarketing studies of the humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, in patients with allergic asthma. In this patient population, omalizumab has been shown to have beneficial effects in subjective and objective outcome measures, as well as resulting in reductions in medication use. Omalizumab is now globally licensed for use in severe persistent asthma. However, a growing number of reports suggest that anti-IgE treatment may also be beneficial to patients suffering from other IgE-related conditions, including allergic rhinitis, peanut allergy, latex sensitivity, atopic dermatitis, chronic urticaria and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. For these patients, and specifically for those with severe refractory disease, anti-IgE treatments might have the potential of reducing their financial burden both in terms of medical costs and of loss of productivity in missed work and school days. In this reveiw, we evaluate the evidence in support of a more extensive role for omalizumab in a number of non-asthma IgE-related conditions, and particularly where intensive treatment has not been effective. However, studies with larger numbers of well-characterized patients will be necessary to provide sound evidence regarding the benefit of IgE blockade in these challenging conditions.

[Asthma exacerbations: pharmacological prevention]

Asthma exacerbations are responsible for many emergency medical interventions and account for a significant proportion of the health costs of the disease. Increased airway inflammation is a key feature of exacerbations in asthma and therefore inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are considered as first-line therapy for long-term asthma control. ICS have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, as well as improving lung function. Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists also reduce the incidence of asthma exacerbations but are less effective than ICS. In patients with inadequately controlled persistent asthma despite low-dose ICS, the addition of a long-acting inhaled beta-agonist (LABA) should be considered. LABA should not be given alone and should always be associated with ICS in asthma. The anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, omalizumab, reduces severe exacerbations and emergency visits in patients with severe allergic asthma. In clinical trials measurement of the inflammatory response in induced sputum could provide information concerning appropriate drug therapy. Asthma-associated comorbidities should be investigated and treated, particularly in severe asthma. Despite a high prevalence of both gastro-oesophageal reflux and allergic rhinitis among patients with asthma, treatment with proton-pump inhibitors or nasal corticosteroids does not reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations.

Omalizumab decreases IgE production in patients with allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma; PKPD analysis of a biomarker, total IgE

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Omalizumab is a humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody that binds and captures circulating IgE, preventing interaction with receptors on mast cells and basophils, thereby interrupting the allergic cascade. It has a well-characterized efficacy and safety profile in patients with asthma. While omalizumab is known to reduce serum free IgE concentrations, effects on total IgE and IgE production are less well characterized.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

(i) Confirmation of prior hypotheses that IgE production can decrease with time when patients are given anti-IgE therapy; (ii) guidance on a biomarker, total IgE, which can be used to ascertain whether individual patients experience a change in their IgE production; and (iii) a way to assess whether patients' IgE production has been sufficiently down-regulated such that they may consider stopping anti-IgE therapy.

AIM

To determine whether excessive IgE production by patients with atopic allergic asthma decreases with omalizumab therapy.

METHODS

Omalizumab, free and total IgE data were obtained from an epidemiological study and six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with allergic asthma. The binding between omalizumab and IgE together with the production and elimination of IgE were modelled as previously, except that, in order to explain why total IgE was decreasing over a period of 5 years, the expression of IgE was allowed to change.

RESULTS

The prior constant IgE production model failed to converge on the data once long-term observations were included, whereas models allowing IgE production to decrease fitted. A feedback model indicated that, on average, IgE production decreased by 54% per year. This model was further developed with covariate searches indicating clinically small but statistically significant effects of age, gender, body mass index and race on some parameters. Model predictions were checked internally and externally against 3-5 year data from paediatric and adult atopic asthmatic patients and externally against extensive total IgE data from a long-duration (>1 year) phase 1 study which was not used in the model building.

CONCLUSIONS

A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model incorporating omalizumab-IgE binding and feedback for control of IgE production indicates that omalizumab reduces production of IgE. This raises the possibility that indefinite treatment may not be required, only for perhaps a few years. After the initial accumulation, total IgE should provide a means to monitor IgE production and guide individual treatment decisions.