Omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with 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.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Gulf Asthma Diagnosis and Management in Adults: Expert Review and Recommendations

The prevalence and incidence of asthma are increasing globally because of genetic and environmental influences. Prevalence of asthma in the Gulf has been reported to range from 4.7% to 32.0% and has a substantial economic burden. In this paper, we summarize current asthma management guidance for adults, present insights, and recommendations by key opinion leaders (KOLs) in the Gulf region, and key performance indicators for guiding clinical practice for asthma diagnosis, management, and treatment in the Gulf. While it is recommended that the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines should be followed wherever possible for the management of asthma, KOLs in the Gulf region have presented additional recommendations based on regional challenges and insights. There is a need for better diagnosis using objective testing, increased efforts in tackling the burden of comorbidities in the region, and greater provision of the necessary tools for phenotyping severe asthma. Furthermore, there is a need for greater education for physicians regarding asthma treatment, including the importance of inhaled-corticosteroid-containing controller medication. Regionally, there is also a need for specialist asthma clinics and asthma educators, which would serve to educate physicians and their patients as well as to improve the management of patients. Finally, the use of asthma registries, digital devices, and electronic templates would be of benefit in the management of asthma patients in the region.

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.

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.

Dual biologic therapy in a patient with severe asthma and other allergic disorders

Severe asthma is very difficult to manage in many individuals, and systemic corticosteroids are often used to prevent or manage acute exacerbations. Furthermore, comorbid allergic conditions may render standard therapies inadequate. A 51-year-old man presented with severe eosinophilic asthma requiring nearly constant oral corticosteroid usage despite using high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and secondary asthma controllers. His condition was complicated by aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, including severe nasal polyposis, chronic rhinosinusitis, as well as chronic idiopathic urticaria. Mepolizumab was initiated and led to dramatic improvement of asthma over 6 months. However, he continued to experience exacerbations of chronic idiopathic urticaria not responsive to H1-antihistamines. Omalizumab was added, and the patient's urticaria attained marked improvement with only an occasional breakthrough rash. Dual biologic therapies can be a unique and useful steroid-sparing treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

'Like a fish on dry land': an explorative qualitative study into severe asthma and the impact of biologicals on patients' everyday life

RESULTS

Findings show how our respondents experience a high burden of disease (breathlessness, fatigue, exacerbations, loss of family, friends and employment) and treatment (oral corticosteroids' side-effects, dependency, life-style changes). Treatment with biologicals is relatively new for respondents. They mention to be cautious in their embrace of biologicals and in expressing hope for the future. Respondents who react to treatment with biologicals experience relief of both the burden of disease and treatment. They aim to regain their social life and societal participation, a contrast to those for whom biologicals prove ineffective. Biologicals' burden of treatment is experienced as low and minor side-effects are mentioned by three respondents. Respondents appear relatively unconcerned about the lack of knowledge concerning the long-term effects of biologicals.Conclusions: Effective treatment with biologicals is generally experienced as a cautiously optimistic next step in a much longer and complex process of living with severe asthma. The practical lessons we draw point to managing patients' expectations and the need to pay attention to patients not eligible for treatment with biologicals.

Targeted Molecular Therapies in Allergy and Rhinology

Biologic agents, monoclonal antibodies that target highly-specific molecular pathways of inflammation, are becoming integrated into care pathways for multiple disorders that are relevant in otolaryngology and allergy. These conditions share common inflammatory mechanisms of so-called Type 2 inflammation with dysregulation of immunoglobulin E production and eosinophil and mast cell degranulation leading to tissue damage. Biologic agents are now available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). This paper summarizes the diagnosis and management of these conditions and critically reviews the clinical trial data that has led to regulatory approval of biologic agents for these conditions.

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.

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)].

Rapid desensitization of humanized mice with anti-human FcεRIα monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is classically mediated by allergen cross-linking of IgE bound to the α chain of FcεRI, the mast cell/basophil high affinity IgE receptor. Allergen cross-linking of the IgE/FcεRI complex activates these cells, inducing release of disease-causing mediators, cytokines, and enzymes. We previously demonstrated that IgE-mediated anaphylaxis could be safely prevented in wild-type BALB/c mice by rapid desensitization with anti-mouse FcεRIα mAb.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to use humanized mice to extend these results to humans.

METHODS

We actively immunized huFcεRIα/F709 mice, which express human (hu) instead of mouse FcεRIα and a mutant IL-4 receptor that lacks inhibitory function. We passively immunized huFcεRIα mice, as well as human cord blood-reconstituted reNSGS mice, which are immune-deficient, produce mast cell-stimulating human cytokines, and develop numerous human mast cells. For desensitization, we used anti-huFcεRIα mAbs that bind FcεRIα regardless of its association with IgE (noncompeting mAbs), and/or mAbs that compete with IgE for huFcεRIα binding (competing mAbs). Anaphylaxis was induced by intravenous injection of antigen or anti-huIgE mAb.

RESULTS

Anti-huFcεRIα mAb rapid desensitization was safer and more effective than allergen rapid desensitization and suppressed anaphylaxis more rapidly than omalizumab or ligelizumab. Rapid desensitization of naïve, IgE-sensitized huFcεRIα mice and huFcεRIα/F709 mice that were egg-allergic with anti-FcεRIα mAbs safely removed >98% of IgE from peritoneal mast cells and completely suppressed IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. Rapid desensitization of reNSGS mice with anti-FcεRIα mAbs also safely removed ∼98% of mast cell IgE and prevented IgE-mediated anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid desensitization with anti-FcεRIα mAbs may be a safe, effective, and practical way to prevent IgE-mediated anaphylaxis.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

Biologicals targeting type 2 immunity: Lessons learned from asthma, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis

During the last decades, progression of research has led to great achievements for treatment and therapy of several disabling disorders, particularly in the field of chronic inflammatory diseases. The increased knowledge of the molecular mechanisms operating in such diseases has represented the first step in this process, and the discovery of molecules able to interfere with the natural history of the diseases, has been the second. This review is focused on the effects of biologics on type 2 diseases such as asthma, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis, both biologics just approved for clinical application and also those that are currently undergoing clinical trials. We will also discuss aspects and emphasize clinical trials and recently published studies, as well as research that is currently in the progress, which will be highly relevant for basic immunologists. Likewise, we will cover aspects that are pertinent for clinical immunologists and highlight translational studies that are evaluating novel biologicals in animal models.

'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.

Bone Marrow Mast Cell Antibody-Targetable Cell Surface Protein Expression Profiles in Systemic Mastocytosis

Despite recent therapeutic advances, systemic mastocytosis (SM) remains an incurable disease due to limited complete remission (CR) rates even after novel therapies. To date, no study has evaluated the expression on SM bone marrow mast cells (BMMC) of large panel of cell surface suitable for antibody-targeted therapy. In this study, we analyzed the expression profile of six cell-surface proteins for which antibody-based therapies are available, on BMMC from 166 SM patients vs. 40 controls. Overall, variable patterns of expression for the markers evaluated were observed among SM BMMC. Thus, CD22, CD30, and CD123, while expressed on BMMC from patients within every subtype of SM, showed highly variable patterns with a significant fraction of negative cases among advanced SM (aggressive SM (ASM), ASM with an associated clonal non-MC lineage disease (ASM-AHN) and MC leukemia (MCL)), 36%, 46%, and 39%, respectively. In turn, CD25 and FcεRI were found to be expressed in most cases (89% and 92%) in virtually all BMMC (median: 92% and 95%) from both indolent and advanced SM, but with lower/absent levels in a significant fraction of MC leukemia (MCL) and both in MCL and well-differentiated SM (WDSM) patients, respectively. In contrast, CD33 was the only marker expressed on all BMMC from every SM patient. Thus, CD33 emerges as the best potentially targetable cell-surface membrane marker in SM, particularly in advanced SM.

Omalizumab dampens type 2 inflammation in a group of long-term treated asthma patients and detaches IgE from FcεRI

Even if omalizumab is broadly used in the treatment of severe, allergic asthma, the immunological effects in long-term treated patients have not been fully elucidated. To this aim, a cohort of 15 allergic asthmatic patients treated with omalizumab for at least three years was compared with 12 allergic asthma patients treated with standard therapy. Omalizumab treated asthmatic patients showed lower frequencies of circulating plasmacytoid DCs, and lower CD154 expression on CD4 T-helper cells than the control group. Moreover, basophils and DCs from omalizumab-treated patients had lower surface expression of IgE compared to the control group. In a longitudinal evaluation of two patients that started omalizumab treatment, we show that FcεRI free of IgE were evident on basophils just after four weeks of drug administration. Finally, in vitro experiments with basophils obtained from healthy donors confirm that omalizumab is able to detach IgE from high affinity IgE receptors. Collectively these data indicate that long-term omalizumab treatment dampens type 2 inflammation acting on different cell types that play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of allergic asthma. Moreover, we have identified a further mechanism of action of omalizumab, such as the ability to detach IgE from its receptor.

Patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe allergic asthmatics treated with omalizumab: a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have established the safety and efficacy of omalizumab on clinical parameters, and have also evaluated its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this systematic literature review was to review published data based on PRO endpoints in order to determine the benefit of omalizumab as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted of reference databases and recent conferences. RCTs of add-on omalizumab therapy in adults, adolescents, and children with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma were included. Two researchers independently screened and reviewed articles with regards to inclusion and exclusion criteria for relevant studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six trials met the criteria for inclusion. Of these, PRO measures were included in 19 trials to capture the impact of omalizumab on symptoms, 11 assessed patients for health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), and four evaluated asthma control. Other PROs related to global evaluation of treatment effectiveness and work productivity. Overall, results demonstrated a significant difference across most PROs in favor of omalizumab add-on therapy vs placebo or comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

PROs are an integral part of outcome assessment in clinical trials related to asthma. The RCTs reviewed demonstrate that omalizumab treatment improves PROs in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma, particularly symptom control and HRQoL.

Traditional Therapies for Severe Asthma

Severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease. The European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society guidelines define severe asthma for patients 6 years or older as "asthma which requires treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids…plus a second controller or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming 'uncontrolled' or which remains 'uncontrolled' despite this therapy." This article reviews available traditional therapies, data behind their uses in severe asthma, and varying recommendations. As various asthma endotypes and phenotypes are better understood and characterized, targeted therapies should help improve disease outcomes, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness.

Quality of life in asthmatic children and their caregivers after two-year treatment with omalizumab, a real-life study

Introduction

Omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, has been successfully used as a supplementary therapy to improve asthma control in children aged ≥ 6 years with severe persistent allergic asthma.

Aim

To demonstrate the quality of life in children with severe asthma and their caregivers, and changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dose after 2-year treatment with omalizumab.

Material and methods

Participants were seen in the clinic at enrollment (visit 1), after 16 weeks (visit 2), after 52 weeks (visit 3) and after 104 weeks (visit 4) of treatment with omalizumab. We evaluated lung function, ICS use and the quality of life with the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ) and the Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ).

Results

Nineteen children and caregivers were enrolled. Significant improvement was observed in PAQLQ and PACQLQ scores, both in all domains and in total scores. Significant differences were found between the first and the other visits. A positive correlation between PAQLQ and PACQLQ at the first and at the second visit was found, 63.3% of patients achieved reduction in ICS doses. We did not notice any significant improvement in FEV₁.

Conclusions

The improvement in quality of life in asthmatic children and adolescents observed after omalizumab correlates with the improvement of quality of life in caregivers, reduction in ICS use but not with FEV₁.

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.

IgE and eosinophils as therapeutic targets in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by reversible airflow obstruction, which is being more widely recognized as a broad-spectrum disease that encompasses multiple patient characteristics and pathophysiologic mechanisms. Suboptimal asthma control leads to increasing burden of healthcare costs and loss of productivity to society. Biologic therapies targeted at IgE and eosinophils can be used in poorly controlled allergic and eosinophilic asthma, respectively. The purpose of this review is to analyze the advancements in currently available biologic therapies targeted at IgE and eosinophils in asthma and to identify how these therapies may impact overall healthcare costs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Omalizumab is an anti-IgE antibody that is approved for use of poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Many studies have confirmed that omalizumab not only improves quality of life and symptom scores, but also decreases urgent care and emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Dupilumab is a biologic agent targeted at TH2 cytokines, but indirectly impacts IgE and is an important biologic agent for atopic disease. Mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab target IL-5, a key cytokine for eosinophils. For patients with poorly controlled eosinophilic asthma, these biologic agents improve asthma symptoms, reduce exacerbations, and reduce emergency visits and hospitalizations.

SUMMARY

Poorly controlled severe asthma affects a small portion of patients with asthma in the United States and yet it accounts for large portion of healthcare utilization. Biological therapies in poorly controlled severe persistent asthma have been identified to reduce healthcare utilization, including emergency visits and hospitalizations. Biologic agents have a clear beneficial role in the management of severe asthma, and further evaluations should be continued in identifying optimal patient characteristics for the various agents and overall benefit toward healthcare utilization and cost.

Emerging interleukin receptor antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, usually characterized by chronic airway inflammation. Most patients with asthma can be well-controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and, if necessary, the addition of a long-acting beta agonist. Despite these therapies, 5% to 10% of patients with asthma have severe, uncontrolled asthma. Selecting patients based on peripheral eosinophil counts and a history of exacerbations has led to significant decreases in exacerbations and an improvement in asthma control with medications that target IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13/. Areas covered: This review will cover the definition of severe asthma, existing treatment options, biomarkers, and the emerging role of interleukin antagonists in the treatment of severe asthma. Expert opinion: IL antagonists are novel drugs targeting important inflammatory cytokines in asthma. Anti-IL-5 drugs provide the most promise as they have obtained regulatory approval and are available for use. Anti-IL-4 drug results are also promising. There is, however, uncertainty regarding the success of anti-IL-13 drugs development at this point. An ongoing focus of research is to significantly increase our understanding of the biology of asthma, and in particular severe asthma, making more and better targeted therapies. There may also be potential in the future to use these new drugs earlier in the development of asthma, as disease-modifying interventions that might be associated with remission or even cure.

dIvergEnt: How IgE Axis Contributes to the Continuum of Allergic Asthma and Anti-IgE Therapies

Asthma is an airway disease characterised by chronic inflammation with intermittent or permanent symptoms including wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough, which vary in terms of their occurrence, frequency, and intensity. The most common associated feature in the airways of patients with asthma is airway inflammation. In recent decades, efforts have been made to characterise the heterogeneous clinical nature of asthma. The interest in improving the definitions of asthma phenotypes and endotypes is growing, although these classifications do not always correlate with prognosis nor are always appropriate therapeutic approaches. Attempts have been made to identify the most relevant molecular and cellular biomarkers underlying the immunopathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. For almost 50 years, immunoglobulin E (IgE) has been identified as a central factor in allergic asthma, due to its allergen-specific nature. Many of the mechanisms of the inflammatory cascade underlying allergic asthma have already been elucidated, and IgE has been shown to play a fundamental role in the triggering, development, and chronicity of the inflammatory responses within the disease. Blocking IgE with monoclonal antibodies such as omalizumab have demonstrated their efficacy, effectiveness, and safety in treating allergic asthma. A better understanding of the multiple contributions of IgE to the inflammatory continuum of asthma could contribute to the development of novel therapeutic strategies for the disease.

Omalizumab versus Mepolizumab as add-on therapy in asthma patients not well controlled on at least an inhaled corticosteroid: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to examine the comparative efficacy of Omalizumab (OMA) and Mepolizumab (Mepo) in the treatment of severe asthma by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

Data Sources: A systematic review of the literature was performed through four databases from their inception to February 2016.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Randomized control trials and cohort studies were considered if they addressed the individual efficacy of OMA and Mepo in the treatment of asthma that was not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with or without other agents.

RESULTS

OMA was significantly better than Mepo in improving the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire with a mean difference of 0.38 and a confidence interval of (0.21-0.55), p < 0.0001, without reaching the minimal clinically important difference of 0.5. No significant difference was seen in Asthma Control Questionnaire, forced expiratory volume in second 1 (FEV1), and Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR) improvement from baseline. Both medications were successful in reducing the calculated annualized rates of asthma exacerbations (AEs) vs placebo by approximately 50%. The heterogeneity score for the different comparisons were elevated except for the PEFR.

CONCLUSION

When compared indirectly via a network meta-analysis, the efficacy of OMA and Mepo was similar in the treatment of asthma that was not well controlled on at least high-dose ICS. The high heterogeneity observed and the different selection criteria for the use of the two drugs do not permit us to make any definitive recommendations for the preferential use of OMA vs Mepo in the patient populations studied. However, the current data do not suggest any major differences in efficacy.

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.

A 1-day visit in a severe asthma centre: effect on asthma control, quality of life and healthcare use

Patients with uncontrolled asthma report ongoing symptoms, poor quality-of-life and extensive healthcare use (HCU) and might benefit from management by a specialised severe asthma team. It is unknown whether a one-time evaluation by asthma experts, without long-term supervision by a specialised team, provides favourable outcomes. We evaluated asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ), quality-of-life (Asthma-related Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and HCU before and 1 year after a 1-day visit programme in a severe asthma centre, including a multidisciplinary assessment resulting in a personalised management plan to be implemented by patients own pulmonologists.40 uncontrolled asthma patients completed questionnaires (ACQ, AQLQ, HCU) at baseline, and 6 and 12 months follow-up.ACQ improved from 2.6 (interquartile range 1.7-3.2) to 1.8 (1.2-3.2) (p=0.003) and AQLQ from 4.8 (4.0-5.2) to 5.3 (4.4-6.0) (p<0.001). We found a reduction in patients with ≥2 exacerbations (95% versus 17%; p<0.001), ≥1 emergency room visit (78% versus 37%; p<0.001) and ≥1 hospitalisation (47% versus 10%; p=0.001).Evaluation of uncontrolled asthma patients in a 1-day visit programme in a severe asthma centre resulted in significant improvements in asthma control, quality-of-life and healthcare use after 1 year. This 1-day visit approach seems beneficial for uncontrolled asthma patients and might reduce their dependence on expensive treatment modalities and long-term management in specialised centres.

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.

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.

Developing therapies for peanut allergy

Peanut allergy is an IgE-mediated, persisting immune disorder that is of major concern worldwide. Currently, no routine immunotherapy is available to treat this often severe and sometimes fatal food allergy. Traditional subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy with crude peanut extracts has proven not feasible due to the high risk of severe systemic side effects. The allergen-specific approaches under preclinical and clinical investigation comprise subcutaneous, oral, sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy with whole-peanut extracts as well as applications of hypoallergenic peanut allergens or T cell epitope peptides. Allergen-nonspecific approaches include monoclonal anti-IgE antibodies, TCM herbal formulations and Toll-like receptor 9-based immunotherapy. The potential of genetically engineered plants with reduced allergen levels is being explored as well as the beneficial influence of lactic acid bacteria and soybean isoflavones on peanut allergen-induced symptoms. Although the underlying mechanisms still need to be elucidated, several of these strategies hold great promise. It can be estimated that individual strategies or a combination thereof will result in a successful immunotherapy regime for peanut-allergic individuals within the next decade.

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 for asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a respiratory (airway) condition that affects an estimated 300 million people worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). It is called an 'anti-IgE' drug. IgE is an immune mediator involved in clinical manifestations of asthma. A recent update of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2013 recommends omalizumab for use as add-on therapy in adults and children over six years of age with inadequately controlled severe persistent allergic IgE-mediated asthma who require continuous or frequent treatment with oral corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of omalizumab versus placebo or conventional therapy for asthma in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials for potentially relevant studies. The most recent search was performed in June 2013. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and searched online trial registries and drug company websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials examining anti-IgE administered in any manner for any duration. Trials with co-interventions were included, as long as they were the same in each arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted and entered data. Three modes of administration were identified from the published literature: inhaled, intravenous and subcutaneous injection. The main focus of the updated review is subcutaneous administration, as this route is currently used in clinical practice. Subgroup analysis was performed by asthma severity. Data were extracted from published and unpublished sources.

MAIN RESULTS

In all, 25 trials were included in the review, including 11 new studies since the last update, for a total of 19 that considered the efficacy of subcutaneous anti-IgE treatment as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids.For participants with moderate or severe asthma who were receiving background inhaled corticosteroid steroid (ICS) therapy, a significant advantage favoured subcutaneous omalizumab with regard to experiencing an asthma exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.60; ten studies, 3261 participants). This represents an absolute reduction from 26% for participants suffering an exacerbation on placebo to 16% on omalizumab, over 16 to 60 weeks. A significant benefit was noted for subcutaneous omalizumab versus placebo with regard to reducing hospitalisations (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; four studies, 1824 participants), representing an absolute reduction in risk from 3% with placebo to 0.5% with omalizumab over 28 to 60 weeks. No separate data on hospitalisations were available for the severe asthma subgroup, and all of these data were reported for participants with the diagnosis of moderate to severe asthma. Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab were also significantly more likely to be able to withdraw their ICS completely than those treated with placebo (OR 2.50, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.13), and a small but statistically significant reduction in daily inhaled steroid dose was reported for omalizumab-treated participants compared with those given placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -118 mcg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent per day, 95% CI -154 to -84). However, no significant difference between omalizumab and placebo treatment groups was seen in the number of participants who were able to withdraw from oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.63).Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids required a small but significant reduction in rescue beta2-agonist medication compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.39 puffs per day, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.24; nine studies, 3524 participants). This benefit was observed in both the moderate to severe (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31) and severe (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10) asthma subgroups on a background therapy of inhaled corticosteroids; however, no significant difference between subcutaneous omalizumab and placebo was noted for this outcome in participants with severe asthma who were receiving a background therapy of inhaled plus oral corticosteroids. Significantly fewer serious adverse events were reported in participants assigned to subcutaneous omalizumab than in those receiving placebo (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 15 studies, 5713 participants), but more injection site reactions were observed (from 5.6% with placebo to 9.1% with omalizumab).To reflect current clinical practice, discussion of the results is limited to subcutaneous use, and trials involving intravenous and inhaled routes have been archived.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab was effective in reducing asthma exacerbations and hospitalisations as an adjunctive therapy to inhaled steroids and during steroid tapering phases of clinical trials. Omalizumab was significantly more effective than placebo in increasing the numbers of participants who were able to reduce or withdraw their inhaled steroids. Omalizumab was generally well tolerated, although more injection site reactions were seen with omalizumab. Further assessment in paediatric populations is necessary, as is direct double-dummy comparison with ICS. Although subgroup analyses suggest that participants receiving prednisolone had better asthma control when they received omalizumab, it remains to be tested prospectively whether the addition of omalizumab has a prednisolone-sparing effect. It is also not clear whether there is a threshold level of baseline serum IgE for optimum efficacy of omalizumab. Given the high cost of the drug, identification of biomarkers predictive of response is of major importance for future research.

Short and long-term quality of life and asthma control with omalizumab therapy in a real life setting in Portugal

BACKGROUND

The impact of severe asthma on patients' quality of life (QoL) has been previously demonstrated, as well the difficulties in controlling the disease. We aimed to evaluate the effect of omalizumab on QoL and asthma control, and its safety and tolerability in real-life conditions in Portugal.

METHODS

Prospective and open-label study in 15 adult patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma on omalizumab treatment ≥16 weeks (w). The short (at 16w) and long-term (at 1 and 2 years) (y) effects of omalizumab were assessed through the Asthma Life Questionnaire (ALQ) and the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Other secondary outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in ALQ total score (at 16w, p=0.002; at 1y, p=0.033 and at 2y, p=0.024), as well as in the 'non-scheduled medical visits' and the 'medication use' domains in both the short and long terms was observed. Regarding ACT, we verified a significant improvement in total score (at 16w, p=0.004; at 1y, p=0.004 and at 2y, p=0.008) and in almost all of the five individual questions. Asthma exacerbations and unscheduled health care visits were significantly decreased. There was a significant rise in lung function and a decrease in daily inhaled steroids dose. The most frequent adverse effects were headaches and nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab promoted a global benefit on QoL and asthma control outcomes. It also yielded a reduction in asthma exacerbations and unscheduled health care visits, a steroid-sparing effect, and an improvement in lung function. The drug was found to be generally safe and well-tolerated.

Outpatient management of asthma in children

The principal aims of asthma management in childhood are to obtain symptom control that allows individuals to engage in unrestricted physical activities and to normalize lung function. These aims should be achieved using the fewest possible medications. Ensuring a correct diagnosis is the first priority. The mainstay of asthma management remains pharmacotherapy. Various treatment options are discussed. Asthma monitoring includes the regular assessment of asthma severity and asthma control, which then informs decisions regarding the stepping up or stepping down of therapy. Delivery systems and devices for inhaled therapy are discussed, as are the factors influencing adherence to prescribed treatment. The role of the pediatric health care provider is to establish a functional partnership with the child and their family in order to minimize the impact of asthma symptoms and exacerbations during childhood.

The use of biological agents for the treatment of fungal asthma and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is a virulent manifestation of the Th2 asthma endotype that includes asthma with fungal sensitization, raising the feasibility of biological therapies targeting Th2 pathway molecules or cells. The first molecule amenable to clinical intervention with a biological was IgE. Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody (Mab), targets the same epitope on the IgE CH3 region that binds to and crosslinks high-affinity receptors on mast cells and basophils, thereby initiating the allergic inflammatory cascade. Omalizumab is licensed for allergic asthma and has been beneficial in uncontrolled studies of ABPA, reducing exacerbations and steroid requirements. Trials of several Mabs directed against the Th2 cytokine IL-5 show clinical benefit in patients with a severe refractory eosinophilic asthma phenotype, while a Mab against IL-13 is effective in asthma patients with a Th2-high endotype. Immunodulation is also feasible with small molecule biologicals, such as antisense oligodeoxynucleotides and cholecalciferol. Controlled trials of Th2-inhibiting biologicals in patients with ABPA and severe asthma with fungal sensitization appear warranted.

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.

International consensus on (ICON) pediatric asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic lower respiratory disease in childhood throughout the world. Several guidelines and/or consensus documents are available to support medical decisions on pediatric asthma. Although there is no doubt that the use of common systematic approaches for management can considerably improve outcomes, dissemination and implementation of these are still major challenges. Consequently, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (iCAALL), recently formed by the EAACI, AAAAI, ACAAI, and WAO, has decided to propose an International Consensus on (ICON) Pediatric Asthma. The purpose of this document is to highlight the key messages that are common to many of the existing guidelines, while critically reviewing and commenting on any differences, thus providing a concise reference. The principles of pediatric asthma management are generally accepted. Overall, the treatment goal is disease control. To achieve this, patients and their parents should be educated to optimally manage the disease, in collaboration with healthcare professionals. Identification and avoidance of triggers is also of significant importance. Assessment and monitoring should be performed regularly to re-evaluate and fine-tune treatment. Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment. The optimal use of medication can, in most cases, help patients control symptoms and reduce the risk for future morbidity. The management of exacerbations is a major consideration, independent of chronic treatment. There is a trend toward considering phenotype-specific treatment choices; however, this goal has not yet been achieved.

Effect of omalizumab as add-on therapy on asthma-related quality of life in severe allergic asthma: a Brazilian study (QUALITX)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of omalizumab as an add-on therapy to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) on asthma-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with severe allergic asthma.

METHODS

This was a 20-week, randomized, open-label, study involving Brazilian patients (>12 years) with severe persistent allergic asthma inadequately controlled despite regular treatment with, at least, ICS (≥500 μg/day fluticasone or equivalent) + LABA. The primary objective was to assess the mean change from baseline in overall Asthma-related Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score in omalizumab-treated patients compared with the control group. Secondary outcome measures included rescue medication use, incidence of asthma exacerbations, perception of treatment efficacy among patients, mean change from baseline in AQLQ score, and >1.5-point increase in overall AQLQ score.

RESULTS

In the omalizumab group, overall AQLQ score was 3.2 (0.9) (mean [SD]) at baseline and 4.4 (1.3) at week 20 versus 3.0 (1.0) at baseline and 3.0 (1.1) at week 20 in the control group. Mean change from baseline on overall AQLQ score at week 20 in the omalizumab group was 1.2 (0.2) versus 0 (0.1) in the control group, showing a significant increase in scores from baseline in the omalizumab group (p < .001). There was also a statistically significant difference (p < .001) in the number of patients who showed a >1.5-point increase from baseline in overall AQLQ score after 20 weeks, thus indicating a better QoL in the omalizumab group. There was no significant difference with respect to the use of rescue medication, incidence of asthma exacerbation, and adverse events between treatment groups. The global evaluation of treatment effectiveness was significantly better for omalizumab (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab was well tolerated and significantly improved the overall AQLQ score. Hence, it is a potential add-on therapy for severe persistent allergic asthma not controlled by standard prescribed treatment in Brazilian patients.

Changes in total IgE plasma concentration measured at the third month during anti-IgE treatment predict future exacerbation rates in difficult-to-treat atopic asthma: a pilot study

In severe, difficult-to-treat atopic asthma with sensitization to perennial allergens, monoclonal antibodies directed against immunoglobulin E (IgE) are recognized to be clinically effective. Omalizumab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody, selectively binds to the high-affinity C-epsilon 3 site of human IgE and inhibits the inflammatory cascade in response to antigenic stimuli. Currently, no indicator is available for predicting patients' responsiveness to long-term omalizumab treatment. This study aims to assess the relationship between early changes in plasma IgE concentration and major outcome variables over a 12-month course of omalizumab.

METHODS

Twenty-three nonsmoking, severe asthmatics (14 females; mean age 47.3 years ± 12.0 SD; mean BMI 25.8 kg/m(2) ± 9.6 SD) sensitized to perennial allergens and unresponsive to high doses of common therapies were evaluated during a 12-month period of omalizumab treatment. Variables included total IgE plasma concentrations, Forced Expiratory Volume 1 second (FEV(1)) symptom complaints (Asthma Control Test (ACT) score), number of emergency visits, hospitalizations, and exacerbations. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare changes observed after the 1-year omalizumab treatment versus baseline. Statistical modelization was used to determine possible relationships between changes in outcomes after 12 months and early changes in plasma IgE (after 3 months of treatment).

RESULTS

The number of emergency visits, hospitalizations, and exacerbations decreased (p < .004, p < .001, and p < .001, respectively) over the 12-months. In contrast, FEV(1) and ACT score substantially increased (both p < .001); the ACT score reaching maximum after only 3 months. The S model showed the best fit and proved the strict relationship between the increase in IgE after 3 months and the exacerbation rate over the 1-year survey (threshold value of ≥250 IU/ml, p < .001). The improvement in FEV(1) was independent of the increase in IgE.

CONCLUSIONS

When confirmed on a larger population, early changes in IgE may be used as a predictor of future responders to omalizumab in terms of exacerbation rate, thus minimizing the economic burden of anti-IgE therapy.

Development of the Asthma Control Composite outcome measure to predict omalizumab response

BACKGROUND

Previous assessments of response to omalizumab were based on diary-based data rather than standard validated instruments. A composite instrument that translates diary-based data into standard validated asthma control measures would characterize patient response to treatment in terms of current asthma control definitions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop the Asthma Control Composite (ACC) tool, using real-time diary-based data to predict treatment response in terms of asthma control.

METHODS

The ACC tool was derived retrospectively using pooled data from two phase 3 studies in patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma. Patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous omalizumab or placebo for 16 weeks plus stable beclomethasone dipropionate therapy, followed by a 3-month corticosteroid reduction period and 5-month double-blind safety extension. Control was assessed as "complete," "good," or "not controlled," based on a composite score of 4 elements: rescue medication (puffs/day), total asthma symptom score, average number of awakening nights/28 days, and activity limitation.

RESULTS

The ACC was mapped to standard validated measures of patient-reported outcomes, with results consistent with clinical outcomes. The proportion of patients with baseline uncontrolled asthma achieving "good" or "complete" asthma control was 48% with omalizumab and 32% with placebo at approximately 4 months. The mean composite score also was improved with omalizumab (3.52) vs placebo (2.56) at approximately 4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACC tool accurately reflects asthma control in moderate to severe asthma patients eligible for biological therapy. Unlike the ACT, which has not been validated in this patient population, the ACC shows promise as an asthma control assessment tool in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Current and future applications of the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab

IgE antibodies are a pivotal factor in pathophysiology of allergic diseases, and the possibility of reducing their level by anti-IgE has long been envisioned. Following several attempts, an effective biologic agent was obtained with the recombinant humanized mono-clonal antibody (rhuMAb)-E25, known as omalizumab. A number of controlled clinical trials demonstrated its efficacy and safety in the treatment of severe allergic asthma uncontrolled by standard drug treatment with maximal recommended doses, and treatment with omalizumab is currently included in international guidelines on asthma management. Other studies reported a clear effectiveness also in allergic rhinitis, but the cost of the anti-IgE treatment suggests its use in patients with rhinitis concomitant with asthma. Other indications to be further investigated are skin disorders such as atopic dermatitis and IgE-mediated urticaria, as well as adverse reactions to foods, with a particularly important role in preventing food-induced anaphylaxis. Finally, there are data indicating the usefulness of omalizumab when used in combination with allergen specific immunotherapy, in terms of reducing the adverse reactions to treatment and increasing the clinical efficacy.

Unusual asthma syndromes and their management

Asthma usually presents with symptoms of wheeze, dyspnoea and cough. However, clinicians should be aware of atypical presentation of this disorder when cough is the main or only symptom in conditions such as cough-variant asthma, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis and atopic cough. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions with inhaled corticosteroids improves symptoms in the majority of patients. Up to 10% of patients with asthma remain poorly controlled in spite of optimal standard therapy. These patients have been encompassed under the term 'treatment-refractory asthma' (TRA), have the greatest morbidity and are responsible for more than 50% of healthcare costs. In this review we discuss investigations, management and pathophysiology of the various phenotypes of atypical presentations of asthma as well as novel biological agents licensed and those that have been reported in clinical trials in terms of their efficacy and safety in TRA.