Short- and long-term real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in severe allergic asthma: systematic review of 42 studies published 2008-2018

Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control.

SUMMARY

Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered.

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

Insights from the trends of omalizumab and mepolizumab utilization in patients with asthma: A population-based cohort study using the National Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Biologics are increasingly being used in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. However, the trends in their use for treating severe asthma in Japan remain unclear.

METHODS

The number of patients with asthma prescribed omalizumab or mepolizumab between April 2017 and March 2018 was estimated according to sex, age, and geographical region using data from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan.

RESULTS

Overall, 5,014, 3,449 and 7,977 patients were prescribed omalizumab, mepolizumab, or either combination, respectively. The total number of patients prescribed biologics displayed a bimodal distribution with peaks in their early teens and seventies. Biologics were most commonly used by male and female patients in their seventies. Prescription was 1.24 times higher in males than in females up to the teenage years, whereas it was 1.95 times higher in females than in males from their twenties onwards. Omalizumab was prescribed 1.45 times more frequently than mepolizumab, especially in pediatric patients, and was prescribed 1.96 times more often to female patients than to male patients. Regional differences were observed in the proportion of patients prescribed biologics. Correlation analysis suggested a weak relationship (r = 0.3226, p = 0.0270) between the proportion of patients prescribed biologics and board-certified allergists according to the geographic region.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, biologics are prescribed more often to older patients with severe asthma compared to those in other countries. Thus, eliminating the regional disparities in asthma treatment by specialists is necessary to provide appropriate medical care to patients with severe asthma.

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

The development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting specific components of the pathways relevant to asthma pathophysiology has revolutionized treatment of severe asthma both in adults and children and helped to further unravel the heterogeneity of this disease. However, the availability of multiple agents, often with overlapping eligibility criteria, creates a need for pragmatic guidance for specialists undertaking care of patients with severe asthma. In this review, we provide an overview of the data supporting the clinical efficacy of biologics in distinct asthma phenotypes/endotypes. We also focus on the role of biomarkers and treatable traits, including comorbidities, in the choice of asthma biologics, highlight which treatments have been demonstrated to be steroid sparing in corticosteroid dependent asthma, and provide practical guidance that can drive shared decision making on treatment choice with patients. In addition, we summarize what is known to date regarding long-term safety of these drugs, and lastly, discuss future directions in biologics research.

[Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma]

Severe asthma affects 3%-10% of the world's population, according to estimates by the Global Initiative for ASTHMA (GINA). Allergic asthma is one of the most common phenotypes of severe asthma and it is characterized by allergen-induced type 2 inflammation in which immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a key mediator, making it an important therapeutic target. The introduction of targeted biological therapies or treatments has entered the management for severe asthma in the era of precision medicine, and the goal of treatment is clinical remission of the disease. There is a significant percentage of patients with severe allergic asthma who do not respond to treatments and whose symptoms are not controlled. In this paper, a group of experts in the management of severe allergic asthma reviewed and evaluated the most relevant evidence regarding the pathophysiology and phenotypes of severe allergic asthma, the role of IgE in allergic inflammation, allergen identification, techniques, biomarkers and diagnostic challenges, available treatments and strategies for disease management, with a special focus on biological treatments. From this review, recommendations were developed and validated through a Delphi consensus process with the aim of offering improvements in the management of severe allergic asthma to the professionals involved and identifying the unmet needs in the management of this pathology.

Antitussive Use in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Omalizumab EXTRA Trial

Acute and chronic cough are common symptoms in patients with severe allergic asthma. Although asthma-related cough can be controlled by asthma-specific medications, both prescription and over-the-counter antitussives are often also necessary. The anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody omalizumab is an effective treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, but little is known about subsequent antitussive use patterns. This post hoc analysis examined data from the Phase 3 EXTRA study that included patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Baseline antitussive use was low overall (16/427, 3.7% for omalizumab and 18/421, 4.3% for placebo). Among patients with no baseline antitussive use (n = 411 omalizumab, n = 403 placebo), most patients (88.3% omalizumab, 83.4% placebo) reported not using antitussives during the 48-week treatment period. The percentage of patients using 1 antitussive was lower for patients treated with omalizumab than placebo (7.1% vs 13.2%), although the adjusted rate of antitussive use during the treatment period was similar for omalizumab and placebo (0.22 and 0.25). Non-narcotics were used more often than narcotics. In conclusion, this analysis found low use of antitussives in patients with severe asthma and suggests that omalizumab may have the potential to decrease antitussive use.

The burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma management in Asia

For most patients, asthma can be effectively managed using inhaled medications. However, patients who have severe and/or uncontrolled asthma, or who experience exacerbations, may require systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) to maintain asthma control. Although SCS are highly effective in this regard, even modest exposure to these medications can increase the risk for long-term, adverse health outcomes, such as type 2 diabetes, renal impairment, cardiovascular disease and overall mortality. Clinical and real-world data from studies investigating asthma severity, control and treatment practices around the globe have suggested that SCS are overused in asthma management, adding to the already substantial healthcare burden experienced by patients. Throughout Asia, although data on asthma severity, control and SCS usage are limited and vary widely among countries, available data strongly suggest a pattern of overuse consistent with the broader global trend. Coordinated changes at the patient, provider, institutional and policy levels, such as increasing disease awareness, promoting better adherence to treatment guidelines and increasing availability of safe and effective alternatives to SCS, are likely necessary to reduce the SCS burden for patients with asthma in Asia.

Omalizumab for the treatment of patients with severe allergic asthma with immunoglobulin E levels above >1500 IU/mL

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) plays a critical role in the allergen-initiated inflammatory pathway and thus serves as a viable therapeutic target in allergic or IgE-mediated diseases such as asthma. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE biologic, has been approved in the United States (US, 2003) and in the European Union (EU, 2005) as an add-on therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma and severe allergic asthma (SAA) aged 6 years and older. The dose and frequency of omalizumab are adjusted based on the patient's body weight and baseline IgE levels, as recommended by its dosing tables. Currently, these dosing recommendations are limited to patients with baseline IgE levels of up to 1500 IU/mL in the European Union and 700 IU/mL in the United States. However, many patients with SAA have IgE levels >1500 IU/mL, highlighting an unmet need. This review presents the current evidence on the treatment benefits of omalizumab in patients with IgE levels >1500 IU/mL. The findings from the reviewed studies which included >3000 patients support the efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations, and improving asthma control, lung function, and quality of life in patients with severe asthma having IgE levels beyond the current dosing range. Omalizumab was well-tolerated in these patients, with no new safety signals. In addition, high IgE levels (>1500 IU/mL) are also reported in several comorbidities of asthma (allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis [ABPA], food allergy, and nasal polyposis) and omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in these indications. These data suggest that omalizumab may be considered for administration in SAA patients, with high IgE levels outside the current dosing tables. A detailed assessment of patients with high IgE levels is needed before deciding on the optimal treatment approach. A management algorithm for SAA patients with IgE >1500 IU/mL is proposed in this review and a suggestion to follow the Delphi consensus is advised.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

Aims. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from 4 major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methods. Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe astma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, and the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L) and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC versus OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.Results. Per-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that base-case results.Conclusion. Whereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard-of-care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

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.

Biologic therapy practices in severe asthma; outcomes from the UK Severe Asthma Registry and survey of specialist opinion

BACKGROUND

several biological treatments have become available for management of severe asthma. There is a significant overlap in the indication of these treatments with lack of consensus on the first-line biologic choice and switching practice in event of treatment failure.

AIMS

to evaluate outcomes of biologic treatments through analysis of the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR), and survey of the UK severe asthma specialists' opinion.

METHODS

patients registered in the UKSAR database and treated with biologics for severe asthma in the period between January 2014 and August 2021, were studied to explore biologic treatments practice. This was complemented by survey of opinion of severe asthma specialists.

RESULTS

a total of 2,490 patients from 10 severe asthma centres were included in the study (mean age 51.3 years, 61.1% female, mean BMI 30.9kg/m2 ). Biologics use included mepolizumab 1,115 (44.8%), benralizumab 925 (37.1%), omalizumab 432 (17.3%), dupilumab 13 (0.5%), and reslizumab 5 (0.2%). Patients on omalizumab were younger and had earlier age of onset asthma than those prescribed mepolizumab or benralizumab. Patients prescribed mepolizumab and benralizumab had similar clinical characteristics. Those on benralizumab were more likely to continue treatment at approximately one year follow up (93.9%), than those on mepolizumab (80%), or omalizumab (69.6%). The first choice biologic differed between centres and changed over the study time period. Experts' opinion also diverged in terms of biologic initiation choice and switching practice.

CONCLUSION

We observed significant variation and divergence in the prescribing practices of biologics in severe asthma that necessitates further research and standardisation.

Asthma control in Brazil: a systematic review

Objectives: To explore asthma control in patients undergoing pharmacotherapy on studies in the last 20 years in Brazil. Asthma is a chronic airway inflammation disease with a high prevalence worldwide. Even with a variety of drug treatment improvements, attaining asthma control is challenging, since it should have a personalized approach. In Brazil, studies on the prevalence of asthma control are scarce and usually from a small sample size.Data Sources: A systematic review was performed to assess asthma control in Brazilian population. Terms related to "asthma", "asthma control" and "Brazil" were used in the search strategies in PubMed, BVSalud, Embase and Cochrane Library, including Brazilian Journal of Allergy and Immunology as data sources. A narrative synthesis was performed to report key outcome.Study Selections: In total, 23 studies were included. Most of them were conducted in the Southeastern and Northeast regions, in a short duration.Results: Pediatric and non-pediatric population were assessed, with a higher proportion of female. In pediatric population, those with poorly controlled asthma usually had severe or persistent disease. In elderly, an increased asthma severity was found, although proper treatment might be effective. Most studies (70%) also described exacerbations, hospitalizations (48%), quality of life (39%), and emergency visits (30%). Despite heterogeneity of outcomes and population, studies show an important prevalence of uncontrolled asthma even in patients being treated, with better disease control with treatment improvements.Conclusions: Studies in Brazil have shown that asthma control remains a challenge and there is still a need for improvement on disease management.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

A pragmatic guide to choosing biologic therapies in severe asthma

There are now several monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies (“biologics”) available to treat severe asthma. Omalizumab is an anti-IgE mAb and is licensed in severe allergic asthma. Current evidence suggests it may decrease exacerbations by augmenting deficient antiviral immune responses in asthma. Like all other biologics, clinical efficacy is greatest in those with elevated T2 biomarkers. Three biologics target the interleukin (IL)-5–eosinophil pathway, including mepolizumab and reslizumab that target IL-5 itself, and benralizumab that targets the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R-α). These drugs all reduce the exacerbation rate in those with raised blood eosinophil counts. Mepolizumab and benralizumab have also demonstrated steroid-sparing efficacy. Reslizumab is the only biologic that is given intravenously rather than by the subcutaneous route. Dupilumab targets the IL-4 receptor and like mepolizumab and benralizumab is effective at reducing exacerbation rate as well as oral corticosteroid requirements. It is also effective for the treatment of nasal polyposis and atopic dermatitis. Tezepelumab is an anti-TSLP (thymic stromal lymphopoietin) mAb that has recently completed phase 3 trials demonstrating significant reductions in exacerbation rate even at lower T2 biomarker thresholds.

Many patients with severe asthma qualify for more than one biologic. To date, there are no head-to-head trials to aid physicians in this choice. However, post-hoc analyses have identified certain clinical characteristics that are associated with superior responses to some therapies. The presence of allergic and/or eosinophilic comorbidities, such as atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, that may additionally benefit by the choice of biologic should also be taken into consideration, as should patient preferences which may include dosing frequency. To date, all biologics have been shown to have excellent safety profiles.

Human Lung Mast Cells Impair Corticosteroid Responsiveness in Human Airway Smooth Muscle Cells

The mechanisms underlying corticosteroid insensitivity in severe asthma have not been elucidated although some indirect clinical evidence points toward a role of mast cells. Here, we tested the hypothesis that mast cells can drive corticosteroid insensitivity in airway smooth muscle cells, a key player in asthma pathogenesis. Conditioned media from resting or FcεR1-activated human lung mast cells were incubated with serum-deprived ASM cells (1:4 dilution, 24 h) to determine their impact on the anti-inflammatory action of fluticasone on ASM cell chemokine expression induced by TNFα (10 ng/ml). Conditioned media from FcεR1-activated mast cells (but not that from non-activated mast cells or control media) significantly reduced the ability of 100 nM fluticasone to suppress ASM TNFα-dependent CCL5 and CXCL10 production at both mRNA and protein levels. In contrast, fluticasone inhibition of CXCL-8 production by TNFα was still preserved in the presence of activated mast cell conditioned media. Transcriptomic analysis validated by individual qPCR assays revealed that activated mast cell conditioned media dramatically reduced the number of anti-inflammatory genes induced by fluticasone in ASM cells. Our study demonstrates for the first time that conditioned media from FcεR1-activated mast cells blunt the anti-inflammatory action of corticosteroids in ASM cells by altering their transactivation properties. Because infiltration of mast cells within the ASM bundles is a defining feature of asthma, mast cell-derived mediators may contribute to the glucocorticoid insensitivity present in severe asthma.

2021 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of severe asthma

Advances in the understanding that severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease and in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of asthma, with the identification of different phenotypes and endotypes, have allowed new approaches for the diagnosis and characterization of the disease and have resulted in relevant changes in pharmacological management. In this context, the definition of severe asthma has been established, being differentiated from difficult-to-control asthma. These recommendations address this topic and review advances in phenotyping, use of biomarkers, and new treatments for severe asthma. Emphasis is given to topics regarding personalized management of the patient and selection of biologicals, as well as the importance of evaluating the response to treatment. These recommendations apply to adults and children with severe asthma and are targeted at physicians involved in asthma treatment. A panel of 17 Brazilian pulmonologists was invited to review recent evidence on the diagnosis and management of severe asthma, adapting it to the Brazilian reality. Each of the experts was responsible for reviewing a topic or question relevant to the topic. In a second phase, four experts discussed and structured the texts produced, and, in the last phase, all experts reviewed and approved the present manuscript and its recommendations.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Omalizumab for Severe Allergic Asthma in Japan Using Real-World Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Omalizumab is a recommended add-on therapy for patients with severe allergic asthma who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with standard of care (SoC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab compared with SoC applying real-world clinical outcomes in adult patients with severe allergic asthma in Japan.

METHODS

A validated Markov model was adapted for Japan and compared the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as an add-on therapy to SoC versus SoC alone using the most recently updated price of omalizumab. A Japanese real-world postmarketing surveillance and a pivotal randomized clinical trial were used as inputs for clinical effectiveness. Japanese life tables and literature were accessed for mortality data and unit costs were extracted from a Japanese insurance claims database. Quality of life data were retrieved from the clinical trial.

RESULTS

In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for omalizumab add-on therapy was ¥2.85 million per quality-adjusted life-year gained (approximately €21 000; 1€ = ¥133.26) compared with SoC alone. The model appeared to be most sensitive to changes in clinically significant severe exacerbation fatality, day-to-day asthma symptom utilities for SoC, discount rates for benefits, day-to-day asthma symptom utilities for omalizumab responders, time horizon, and the annual cost of omalizumab. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of omalizumab being cost-effective was 93% to 98% at a threshold of ¥5 to ¥6 million (willingness-to-pay for 1 quality-adjusted life-year).

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab add-on therapy is cost-effective compared with SoC alone in Japan in severe allergic asthma population who are uncontrolled with high-dose inhaled corticosteroid and other controllers.

A real-world study of ICS use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab is a humanized anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). There is limited evidence that patients treated with mepolizumab can reduce inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate changes in ICS use and clinical outcomes in patients with SEA who initiated mepolizumab treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study (GSK ID: 212695/HO-20-19951) used administrative claims data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Database (identification period: November 2015-March 2018). Eligible patients had SEA and were receiving high-dose ICS and mepolizumab. ICS, oral corticosteroid (OCS), short acting β2-agonist (SABA) use, and exacerbation frequency were analyzed quarterly during the 12-month follow-up period following mepolizumab initiation.

RESULTS

In total, 351 patients were included. The proportion of patients using highdose ICS decreased in quarters 1-4 following mepolizumab initiation (79.8%, 74.6%, 68.9%, 65.5%, respectively); 49.0% of patients reduced or discontinued ICS for ≥1 quarter. Comparing patients who discontinued ICS versus those who remained on high-dose ICS, a lower proportion had chronic OCS use (3.4-9.2% vs 13.9-16.8%) and OCS burst use (15.4-20.8% vs 19.7-26.1%) in quarters 1-4; similarly in quarters 3 and 4, a lower proportion of patients had exacerbations (16.9% and 20.3% vs 27.2% and 27.7%) and SABA claims (35.4% and 39.2% vs 43.3% and 49.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with SEA on high-dose ICS, a reduction in both ICS and OCS use was observed after initiating mepolizumab. These findings have important implications for clinical outcomes and follow-up care in this patient population.

Real-life Cretan asthma registry focused on severe asthma: On behalf of 'The Cretan registry of the use of Biologics in Severe Asthma'

Asthma diagnosis and management remains a challenging task for the medical community. The aim of the present study was to present the functional and inflammatory profiles of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma in a real-life clinical setting referred to the specialized asthma clinic at the University Hospital of Heraklion. The registry included a cohort of 267 patients who were referred to the severe asthma clinic. Patients were assessed with emphasis on the history of allergies, nasal polyposis or other comorbidities. Blood testing for eosinophils counts and total and specific IgE, and pulmonary function tests were performed at baseline. The median age of patients with asthma was 55 years old, 68.5% were women and 58.3% were never smokers. The vast majority presented with late onset asthma (75.7%), whereas eight (3%) patients were on oral corticosteroids. The median number of exacerbations during the last 12 months was 1 (0-3). Furthermore, 50.7% of patients had a positive serum allergy test, the median eosinophil count was 300 (188-508.5) cells/µl of blood and median total IgE level was 117.5 (29.4-360.5) IU/ml. Patients were retrospectively grouped in the following categories: Group 1, mild-moderate asthma; group 2, patients prescribed a step 4 or 5 asthma therapy according to Global Initiative for Asthma; and group 3, patients on biologic agents. Group 1 had significantly higher FEV1% than groups 2 and 3 (93.4 vs. 79.9 and 79.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Finally, the median Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 (ACQ7) score was 1.14, with patients from groups 2 and 3 presenting higher ACQ7 scores compared with group 1 patients as expected (1.1 and 2.1 vs. 0.7, respectively; P<0.001). To the best of our knowledge, this was the first real-life asthma study in Crete that demonstrated that severe asthmatics predominantly have late-onset asthma with airflow obstruction and uncontrolled symptoms.

A patient-oriented approach to long-term use of omalizumab in chronic spontaneous urticaria

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is an effective and safe treatment for antihistamine resistant chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), however, long-term efficacy and safety remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in CSU patients treated for long term and to identify long-term management strategies.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed demographic characteristics, clinical features, laboratory parameters and treatment outcomes of 41 CSU patients who received omalizumab for at least 3 years. Treatment responses were evaluated with urticaria control test (UCT). Treatment safety was evaluated by comparing laboratory findings before and three years after omalizumab initiation as well as considering patients' adverse event reports.

RESULTS

The patients (mean age 40.46 years; 63.4% women) received omalizumab for an average of 41.93 months (mean 31.68 injections/patient). The mean baseline UCT score was 5.56 and average number of injections to reach UCT score ≥12 was 3.3. Nine patients (22%) responded insufficiently to 300 mg/4 weeks omalizumab and required updosing. Thirty-eight patients (92.7%) could tolerate longer dose intervals (>4 weeks) and the dose interval was increased after a mean of 11.53 injections. There was no loss of efficacy of omalizumab. Sixteen patients (39%) had been retreated with omalizumab after a mean discontinuation time of 24 weeks. Five patients (12.2%) reported mild and transient adverse effects. Liver and renal function tests as well as full blood count before and after omalizumab were in normal ranges.

CONCLUSION

For the long-term management of CSU, omalizumab is a safe and effective treatment which can be tailored according to patients' disease activity.

Effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma: A retrospective study in China

BACKGROUND

We conducted the first real-world study of treatment with omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, in Chinese patients with severe allergic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was the steroid-sparing effect of omalizumab after 12 and 16 weeks of treatment. Characteristics of the patient population, treatment patterns, response rate, and other measures of therapeutic effectiveness were also reported.

METHODS

This nationwide, retrospective, real-world study was conducted in patients with severe allergic asthma who were treated with omalizumab in China. Data, including demographics, Asthma Control Test (ACT) and laboratory and lung function test results, and omalizumab use information, were extracted from patient records collected as part of a previously conducted real-world survey (Asthma Group of the Respiratory Disease Society of the Chinese Medical Association).

RESULTS

In total, 139 patient records were included; 131 and 118 patients remained on treatment at the ≥12- and ≥16-week time points, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation age and median asthma duration (interquartile range) were 47.4 ± 14.3 and 7 (4, 15) years, respectively; 75.6% of patients had a history of allergic disease. Reductions (versus baseline) in inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2 agonists or oral corticosteroids were reported in 61.1% and 63.6% of patients at ≥12 and ≥ 16 weeks, respectively. There were significant improvements in ACT scores (6.08, P < .001) and nitric oxide fraction in exhaled air (-13.0, P = .01) from baseline. Multivariate analysis revealed that age and allergic medical history were predictors of omalizumab treatment response. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Real-world omalizumab treatment was efficacious and well-tolerated in Chinese patients with severe allergic asthma.

Novel therapeutic approaches targeting endotypes of severe airway disease

Introduction: Severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), are heterogeneous diseases characterized by different mechanistic pathways (endotypes) and variable clinical presentations (phenotypes).Areas covered: This review provides the clinician with an overview of the prevalence and clinical impact of severe chronic upper and lower airways disease and suggests a novel therapeutic approach with biological agents with possible biomarkers. To select relevant literature for inclusion in this review, we conducted a literature search using the PubMed database, using terms 'severe airways disease' AND 'endotype' AND 'treatment.' The literature review was performed for publication years 2010-2020, restricting the articles to humans and English language publications.Expert opinion: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought forth many challenges for patients with severe airway disease and healthcare practitioners involved in care. These patients could have an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 disease, although treatment with biologics is not associated with a worse prognosis. Eosinopenia on hospital admission plays a key role as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker.

Effects of omalizumab in children with asthma: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is still controversial in the current literature whether omalizumab is beneficial for children with asthma. Given that there is no high-quality meta-analysis to incorporate existing evidence, the purpose of this protocol is to design a systematic review and meta-analysis of the level I evidence to ascertain whether omalizumab is beneficial and safe for children with asthma.

METHODS

The systematic literature review is structured to adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The following search terms will be used in PUBMED, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases on June, 2021, as the search algorithm: (omalizumab) AND (asthma) AND (children). The primary outcome is the long-term safety and tolerability of omalizumab. The other outcomes include asthma control, quality of life, use of asthma controller medications, and spirometry measurements and emergency room visits due to asthma, and serum trough concentrations of omalizumab, free and total immunoglobulin E measured. Review Manager software (v 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration) will be used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/G6N3P.

Biologicals for severe asthma: what we can learn from real-life experiences?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma is a serious disease affecting about 5-10% of asthmatic patients. Often patients with this kind of asthma requires periodical courses or daily intake of oral corticosteroids, to control symptoms. In the last few years several biological drugs have been developed with the aim to decrease exacerbations and reduce or suspend intake of systemic steroids in severe asthmatic patients. Clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy and the safety of biological antibodies in asthma, but it is already known that randomized controlled trials alone are not sufficient to provide complete information on a drug.

RECENT FINDINGS

After marketing of monoclonal antibodies has been developed several real-life studies with the aim to observe how drugs, tested only on trial patients, are able to provide adequate effectiveness even on 'real' patients; indeed, it is well known that the latter differ in some characteristics from the patients of the trials.

SUMMARY

The results of this analysis confirm the good efficacy of the biologics similarly in real-life patients, also ensuring a promising safety even in periods of observation longer than those of the randomized controlled trials.

Real-world Omalizumab and Mepolizumab treated difficult asthma phenotypes and their clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab and Mepolizumab are biologic drugs with proven efficacy in clinical trials. However, a better understanding of their real-world effectiveness in severe asthma management is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the real-world effectiveness of Omalizumab and Mepolizumab, elucidate the clinical phenotypes of patients treated with these drugs, identify baseline characteristics associated with biologic response and assess the spectrum of responses to these medications.

METHODS

Using real-world clinical data, we retrospectively phenotyped biologic naïve patients from the Wessex AsThma CoHort of difficult asthma (N = 478) commenced on Omalizumab (N = 105) or Mepolizumab (N = 62) compared to severe asthma patients not receiving biologics (SNB, N = 178). We also assessed multiple clinical endpoints and identified features associated with response.

RESULTS

Compared to SNB, Omalizumab patients were younger, diagnosed with asthma earlier, and more likely to have rhinitis. Conversely, compared to SNB, Mepolizumab patients were predominantly older males, diagnosed with asthma later, and more likely to have nasal polyposis but less dysfunctional breathing. Both treatments reduced exacerbations, Acute Healthcare Encounters [AHE] (emergency department or hospital admissions), maintenance oral corticosteroid dose, and improved Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ6) scores. Omalizumab response was independently associated with more baseline exacerbations (p = .024) but fewer AHE (p = .050) and absence of anxiety (p = .008). Lower baseline ACQ6 was independently associated with Mepolizumab response (p = .007). A composite group of non-responders demonstrated significantly more psychopathologies and worse baseline subjective disease compared to responder groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In a difficult asthma cohort, Omalizumab and Mepolizumab were used in distinct clinical phenotypes but were both multidimensionally efficacious. Certain baseline clinical characteristics were associated with poorer biologic responses, such as psychological co-morbidity, which may assist clinicians in biologic selection. These characteristics also emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches to support these patients.

Asthma in the Precision Medicine Era: Biologics and Probiotics

Asthma is a major global health issue. Over 300 million people worldwide suffer from this chronic inflammatory airway disease. Typical clinical symptoms of asthma are characterized by a recurrent wheezy cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. The main goals of asthma management are to alleviate asthma symptoms, reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, and minimize long-term medicinal adverse effects. However, currently available type 2 T helper cells (Th2)-directed treatments are often ineffective due to the heterogeneity of the asthma subgroups, which manifests clinically with variable and poor treatment responses. Personalized precision therapy of asthma according to individualized clinical characteristics (phenotype) and laboratory biomarkers (endotype) is the future prospect. This mini review discusses the molecular mechanisms underlying asthma pathogenesis, including the hot sought-after topic of microbiota, add-on therapies and the potential application of probiotics in the management of asthma.

Omalizumab response in patients with asthma by number and type of allergen

BACKGROUND

The anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, improves asthma control and reduces exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, it has been suggested that omalizumab should be reserved for highly allergic patients with multiple allergen sensitivities or perennial-only sensitivities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine impact of allergy burden, including number and type of allergen sensitivities, on omalizumab response in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated a subset of omalizumab-treated patients from the Prospective Observational Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab (NCT01922037) who had completed 13 allergen assessments (N=478). Patients were classified by allergen burden (nonsensitized, 1, 2-4, or ≥5 allergen sensitivities) and type of allergen (nonsensitized, seasonal, perennial, or both). Outcome measures included exacerbation rate vs previous year and improvements in lung function and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ).

RESULTS

Comparable adjusted exacerbation rates were observed after omalizumab initiation, regardless of number or type of allergen sensitizations (0.56-0.85/y). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline at months 6 (0.03-0.09 L) and 12 (-0.08 to 0.08 L) were also similar across subgroups. Least squares mean change in AQLQ from baseline at months 6 (1.0-1.2) and 12 (1.1-1.4) was comparable across patient subgroups, and similar percentages of patients achieved AQLQ minimal clinically important difference of at least a 0.5-point improvement at month 6 (71%-75%), which was maintained or improved to month 12 (71%-89%). In all analyses, 95% confidence intervals overlapped.

CONCLUSION

Overall findings suggest that patients with allergic asthma achieved comparable improvements across distinct outcome measures after omalizumab therapy in a real-world setting, regardless of number and type of allergen sensitizations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01922037.

Potential Role of Mast Cells in Regulating Corticosteroid Insensitivity in Severe Asthma

The mechanisms driving corticosteroid insensitivity in asthma are still unclear although evidence points toward a potential role of lung mast cells. Indeed, a number of in vitro studies using various cell types showed that different mediators produced by activated mast cells, including cytokines, have the capacity to interfere with the therapeutic action of corticosteroids. In patients with severe allergic refractory asthma, the anti-IgE monoclonal antibody (mAb), Omalizumab, has been shown to be associated with a marked reduction in inhaled and systemic use of corticosteroids, further suggesting a key role of mast cells in the poor response of patients to these drugs. The present chapter will discuss the possible underlying mechanisms by which mast cells could contribute to reducing corticosteroid sensitivity seen in patients with severe asthma.

Eosinophilic asthma and the role of monoclonal antibodies

ABSTRACT

Eosinophilic asthma presents with continuous airway inflammation resistant to inhaled corticosteroids but responsive to oral glucocorticoids and monoclonal antibodies. Diagnostic criteria include significantly elevated blood or sputum eosinophils and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Five monoclonal antibodies are used for treatment, with accurate diagnosis and early intervention essential to better outcomes.

Ligelizumab treatment for severe asthma: learnings from the clinical development programme

Objective

Ligelizumab is a humanised IgG1 anti-IgE antibody that binds IgE with higher affinity than omalizumab. Ligelizumab had greater efficacy than omalizumab on inhaled and skin allergen provocation responses in mild allergic asthma. This multi-centre, randomised, double-blind study was designed to test ligelizumab in severe asthma patients not adequately controlled with high-dose inhaled corticoids plus long-acting β2-agonist.

Methods

Patients received 16 weeks ligelizumab (240 mg q2w), omalizumab or placebo subcutaneously, and ACQ-7 was measured as primary outcome at Week 16. In addition, the study generated dose-ranging data of ligelizumab and safety data.

Results

A total of 471 patients, age 47.4 ± 13.36 years, were included in the study. Treatment with ligelizumab did not significantly improve asthma control (ACQ-7) and exacerbation rates compared to omalizumab and placebo. Therefore, primary and secondary objectives of the study were not met. The compound was well tolerated, and the safety profile showed no new safety findings. Pharmacokinetic data demonstrated faster clearance and lower serum concentrations of ligelizumab than historical omalizumab data, and exploratory in vitro data showed differential IgE blocking properties relative to FcεRI and FcεRII/CD23 between the two compounds.

Conclusion

Ligelizumab failed to demonstrate superiority over placebo or omalizumab. Although ligelizumab is more potent than omalizumab at inhibiting IgE binding to the high-affinity FcεRI, there is differential IgE blocking properties relative to FcεRI and FcεRII/CD23 between the two compounds. Therefore, the data suggest that different anti-IgE antibodies might be selectively efficacious for different IgE-mediated diseases.

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Continuous Treatment Versus Boosting Treatment

The implications of boosting Omalizumab treatment (OT) in patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) remain unclear. The study aimed to explore and compare the 12-month effectiveness between continuous, at least 10-month OT (continuation group) and four-month boost of Omalizumab (boost group) in adult patients with SAA. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were collected for further analysis. Of all participants (n = 124), a significant reduction in annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.8 ± 1.5, follow-up = 0.5 ± 1.0, p = 0.047 *) and improvement in small airway ventilation as evaluated by forced expiratory flow at 25–75% (baseline = 55.1 ± 11.1%, follow-up = 59.4 ± 8.4%, p < 0.001 *) were found in the continuation group (n = 110). By contrast, the boost group (n = 14) had significantly increased annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.7 ± 1.4, follow-up = 2.9 ± 3.6, p = 0.031 *) and impaired small airway function (baseline = 55.3 ± 12.9, follow-up = 52.1 ± 12.5, p = 0.026 *). Furthermore, the continuation group rather than the boost group had significant decreases in the frequency of oral corticosteroid (OCS) use as controllers (baseline = 32.7%, follow-up = 20.0%, p = 0.047 *; baseline = 50.0%, follow-up = 21.4%, p = 0.237, respectively) and OCS maintenance dose (mg/month) (baseline = 85.9 ± 180.8, follow-up = 45.8 ± 106.6, p = 0.020 *; baseline = 171.4 ± 221.5, follow-up = 50.0 ± 104.3, p = 0.064, respectively), and increases in asthma control test scores (baseline = 16.0 ± 3.0, follow-up = 19.8 ± 4.4, p < 0.001 *; baseline = 14.6 ± 3.8, follow-up = 19.7 ± 4.7, p = 0.050, respectively). Continuous OT would be beneficial for adult patients with SAA, while boost of Omalizumab would worsen their long-term outcomes.

An Emerging Role for Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Guiding Biological Treatment in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with regard to the inflammatory pathways activated. In recent years, biologic drugs (monoclonal antibodies) directed towards specific components of type 2 inflammation have been approved for the treatment of severe asthma. Phenotyping of patients with severe asthma and evaluation of biomarkers have been recommended to help identify patients who are candidates for treatment with biologics and to monitor treatment responses. Fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a biomarker of type 2 inflammation in asthma, signaling activation of Interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13 pathway. FeNO could be useful to assess treatment response or identify candidates for a specific drug that acts on type 2 inflammation mechanisms linked to Nitric Oxide (NO) production, such as the IL-4/IL-13 pathway or upstream processes. The value of FeNO as a biomarker predictive of responses to the biologics available for treating severe asthma is discussed based on the published studies at the moment of the review.

Real-World Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Severe Allergic Asthma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Assessment of clinical outcomes in the real-world corroborates findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated real-world data of omalizumab on treatment response, lung function, exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health care resource utilization (HCRU), and school/work absenteeism at 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment.

METHODS

Observational studies in patients with severe allergic asthma (≥6 years) treated with omalizumab for ≥16 weeks, published from January 2005 to October 2018, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. A random-effects model was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 86 publications were included. Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE) was good/excellent in 77% patients at 16 weeks (risk difference: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.84; I² = 96%) and in 82% patients at 12 months (0.82, 0.73-0.91; 97%). The mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 160, 220, and 250 mL at 16 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. There was a decrease in Asthma Control Questionnaire score at 16 weeks (-1.14), 6 months (-1.56), and 12 months (-1.13) after omalizumab therapy. Omalizumab significantly reduced annualized rate of severe exacerbations (risk ratio [RR]: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56; I² = 96%), proportion of patients receiving OCS (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75; I² = 96%), and number of unscheduled physician visits (mean difference: -2.34, 95% CI: -3.54 to -1.13; I² = 98%) at 12 months versus baseline.

CONCLUSION

The consistent improvements in GETE, lung function, and PROs, and reductions in asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HCRU with add-on omalizumab in real-life confirm and complement the efficacy data of RCTs.

Immunologic Pathophysiology and Airway Remodeling Mechanism in Severe Asthma: Focused on IgE-Mediated Pathways

Despite the expansion of the understanding in asthma pathophysiology and the continual advances in disease management, a small subgroup of patients remains partially controlled or refractory to standard treatments. Upon the identification of immunoglobulin E (IgE) and other inflammatory mediators, investigations and developments of targeted agents have thrived. Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically targets the circulating IgE, which in turn impedes and reduces subsequent releases of the proinflammatory mediators. In the past decade, omalizumab has been proven to be efficacious and well-tolerated in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma in both trials and real-life studies, most notably in reducing exacerbation rates and corticosteroid use. While growing evidence has demonstrated that omalizumab may be potentially beneficial in treating other allergic diseases, its indication remains confined to treating severe allergic asthma and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Future efforts may be bestowed on determining the optimal length of omalizumab treatment, seeking biomarkers that could better predict treatment response and as well as extending its indications.

Case Report: Off-Label Use of Omalizumab in a 6-Year-Old Boy With ASD Ameliorated Severe Allergic Rhinitis and Subsequently Improved Behavioral Symptoms

Children with ASD have elevated risk for developing allergic symptoms. The severity of allergic symptoms can exacerbate behavioral problems in children with ASD. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, has previously shown efficacy in treating allergic rhinitis and behavioral problems in a 12-year-old child with ASD. The present case report provides robust characterization of behavioral improvement in a 6-year-old child with ASD, allergic rhinitis, and autoimmune disorder. A 6-year-old boy with ASD and Hashimoto's disease presented to the clinic with severe allergic rhinitis, irritability, and language delay. After other treatments failed to improve symptoms, our patient was treated with omalizumab at 300 mg/month via subcutaneous injection for a total of 6 months. Marked improvement in allergic symptoms were observed at 2 months into treatment and were maintained through the treatment period. At the conclusion of the treatment period, results from multiple behavioral questionnaires, including the SRS-2, ABC, RBS-R, and PSQI, demonstrated substantial improvement in ASD-related behavioral symptoms. In this case, omalizumab markedly improved ASD-related and sleep behavior in a 6-year-old with ASD, allergic rhinitis, and autoimmune disorder. Future studies with larger patient populations are warranted to investigate the efficacy of omalizumab in patients with ASD and allergy symptoms.

'Real-world' effectiveness of omalizumab in adults with severe allergic asthma: a meta-analysis

Background: Severe asthma affects 5-10% of the 350 million people with asthma worldwide. Findings from the authors' previous meta-analysis supported omalizumab use as an adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma. The publication of fourteen new articles necessitates an update of the meta-analysis.Objective: To evaluate the 'real-world' effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of acute allergic asthma in adults by calculating pooled effects estimates from data in published articles.Methods: Articles on omalizumab effectiveness in 'real-world' settings were identified. Effect sizes, including point estimates of the proportion of patients who met a given criteria, mean improvements relative to baseline, and change in the proportion of patients requiring oral corticosteroids compared to baseline were extracted. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to pool effect sizes based on proportions. Standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) were calculated from means and standard deviations. Relative risk was calculated from changes in proportions. Variability within and between studies was evaluated.Results: Omalizumab increases the percentage of individuals rated 'good' or 'excellent' on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness Scale. Omalizumab also improves respiratory function, quality-of-life, and asthma control while reducing medication usage, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and adverse events.Conclusion: 'Real-world' evidence continues to support the use of omalizumab as adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma.

Clinical Determinants of Successful Omalizumab Therapy in Severe Allergic Asthma Patients: 4-Year-Long, Real-Life Observation

Introduction

Omalizumab is a high-cost therapy recommended for the treatment of severe allergic asthma.

Objective

To find clinical parameters that are related to the sustained response to omalizumab.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective, real-life, 4-year follow-up was provided in Poland between March 2013 and May 2019. The success of omalizumab was assessed based on composed subjective and objective criteria. Simple/multiple regression analyses were performed to search for predictors of the response to omalizumab.

Results

A total of 989 severe allergic asthma patients were referred for omalizumab therapy, of whom 854 patients were considered eligible for treatment. At weeks 16 and 52, omalizumab was successful in 84% and 91% of patients, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was maintained up to the 4-year follow-up. Four predictors of the response to omalizumab were found at week 16 and two at week 52. The results at week 16 may be used as predictors of success at week 52 based on the model including baseline FEV1% and change in ACQ-7 and miniAQLQ score at week 16: the area under the ROC curve equals 0.746 [95% CI: 0.672–0.820].

Conclusion

Omalizumab therapy is very effective, with this efficacy sustained after 4 years of treatment. Success of the therapy can be predicted from the baseline FEV1% and clinical improvement (based on ACQ-7 and miniAQLQ scores) at week 16.

Real-life safety and efficacy of omalizumab in Japanese patients with severe allergic asthma who were subjected to dosing table revision or expansion: A post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is an anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved for patients with severe allergic asthma in Japan. With regard to omalizumab dosage in Japanese adults with severe allergic asthma in clinical practice settings, this post-marketing surveillance evaluated safety and efficacy of the dosing table revision (DTR) based on a dosing regimen of omalizumab administration every 4 weeks dosing regimen and dosing table expansion (DTE) for patients with baseline IgE levels >700 IU/mL.

METHODS

This 52-week, multicenter study, conducted from September 2013 to November 2018, evaluated omalizumab safety outcomes including adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), efficacy outcomes including Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE), change in oral corticosteroid dose, and asthma exacerbation-related events such as hospitalization, emergency room visits, and worsening of symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the 405 patients registered in the study, safety was evaluated in 392 and efficacy in 390. The mean age of patients was 58.5 years and 58.7% were women. In total, 41.3% of the patients were subjected to DTE and 58.7% to DTR. In the safety dataset, 6.6% experienced an ADR, 32.9% experienced an AE, and 16.1% experienced an SAE. In the efficacy dataset, 63.3% of patients at Week 16 and 63.5% at Week 52 had an 'effective' or 'good' GETE score. Omalizumab was associated with a reduction in worsening of asthma symptoms requiring systemic corticosteroids and frequency of hospitalization. All outcomes were comparable among the DTE and DTR subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study support the safety and efficacy of omalizumab administered based on the revised and expanded dosing table in Japanese patients with severe allergic asthma.

Biologics for the Treatments of Allergic Conditions: Severe Asthma

By selectively targeting specific steps of the immune inflammation cascade, biologic drugs for severe asthma have substantially contributed to increase the standard of care, to reduce drug-related morbidity. and most importantly to ameliorate patients' quality of life. Upcoming molecules are going to provide a chance for severe phenotypes besides Th2 high through the interaction with epithelial and innate immunity. Some practical aspects including optimal treatment duration, the possibility of a dose treatment modulation, the place and relevance of ICS in best responders are still under debate. Long-term safety, especially when interacting with innate immunity needs to be further investigated.

Phenotypes and endotypes of adult asthma: Moving toward precision medicine

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that is challenging to dissect into subgroups because of the heterogeneity present across the spectrum of the disease. Efforts to subclassify asthma using advanced computational methods have identified a number of different phenotypes that suggest that multiple pathobiologically driven clusters of disease exist. The main phenotypes that have been identified include (1) early-onset allergic asthma, (2) early-onset allergic moderate-to-severe remodeled asthma, (3) late-onset nonallergic eosinophilic asthma, and (4) late-onset nonallergic noneosinophilic asthma. Subgroups of these phenotypes also exist but have not been as consistently identified. Advances in our understanding of the diverse immunologic perturbations that drive airway inflammation are consistent with clinical traits associated with these phenotypes and their response to biologic therapies. This has improved the clinician's approach to characterizing asthmatic patients in the clinic. Being able to define asthma endotypes using clinical characteristics and biomarkers will move physicians toward even more personalized management of asthma and precision-based care in the future. Here we will review the most prominent phenotypes and immunologic advances that suggest these disease subtypes represent asthma endotypes.

FENOMA Study: Achieving Full Control in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Introduction

A Spanish real-world study in patients with severe persistent asthma who achieved asthma control after a one-year treatment with omalizumab highlighted the phenotypic heterogeneity of these patients (FENOMA study). In this subanalysis, we describe the clinical improvement in patients with severe allergic asthma in this study (positive skin test and IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL); n=240.

Patients and Methods

FENOMA was an observational, multicentre, retrospective study in 345 patients achieving asthma control according to Spanish guidelines (GEMA). Baseline demographic and asthma-related characteristics were collected. Outcomes analyzed were those included in asthma control definition plus changes in background treatments and in blood eosinophil count (%) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction [FeNO].

Results

At baseline, patients were aged 45.4±15.0 years; 67% were women. Median (Q1;Q3) IgE levels were 302.5 (154.0; 553.5) IU/mL. After one-year treatment with omalizumab: 43.3% of patients had daytime symptoms vs 97.7% before treatment and 49.6% stopped taking oral corticosteroids. FEV₁ increased a median of 12.0 (4.0; 23.0)%; P <0.0001. The number of non-severe asthma exacerbations decreased a median of -4.0 (-7.0; 2.0); P <0.0001. Median unplanned visits to primary care or specialists and days of school/workplace absenteeism decreased from 4.9 (2.0; 6.0), 1.0 (0.0; 3.0) and 0.0 (0.0; 14.0) to 0.0 (0.0; 1.0), 0.0 (0.0; 0.0) and 0.0 (0.0; 0.0), respectively. Median eosinophil blood count and FeNO decreased from 5.0 (3:0; 8.0)% to 3.0 (2.0; 5.5)% and from 36.0 (23:0; 53.0) ppb to 20.0 (13.0; 34.0) ppb, respectively.

Conclusion

This study highlights the asthma control achieved by patients with severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab, with relevant benefits on the burden of the disease both on patients and the healthcare system.

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)].

Real-word experience with mepolizumab: Does it deliver what it has promised?

BACKGROUND

Randomized control trials performed in selected populations of severe eosinophilic asthmatics have shown that mepolizumab, an anti-IL5 therapy, was able to reduce exacerbations and OCS maintenance dose and in some studies, to improve asthma control and lung function.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to confirm the results of the RCTs in real-life in a population of 116 severe eosinophilic asthmatics treated with mepolizumab and who were followed up at the asthma clinic every month for at least 18 months. Severe asthmatics underwent FENO, lung function, asthma control and quality of life questionnaires, sputum induction and gave a blood sample at baseline, after 6 months and then every year.

RESULTS

We found a significant reduction in exacerbations by 85% after 6 months (P < .0001), which was maintained over time. We also found a significant and maintained reduction by 50% in the dose of oral corticosteroids (P < .001). Patients improved their ACT (+5.31pts, p<0.0001) ACQ (-1.13pts, P < .0001) and their AQLQ score (+1.24, P < .0001) at 6 months and this was maintained during follow-up. Only 37% reached asthma control (ACQ <1.5, ACT> 20). We observed a progressive increase in post-BD FEV1 that reached significance after 18 months (190ml or 11%, P < .01). Patients improving their FEV1had higher baseline sputum eosinophils than those not improving airway caliber. We found a significant reduction in sputum eosinophil counts by 60% after 6 months (P < .01) and a maintained reduction in blood eosinophil counts by 98% (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In our real-life study, we confirm the results published in the RCTs showing a sharp reduction in exacerbation and oral corticosteroids dose and an improvement in asthma control and quality of life.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Mepolizumab is efficient in severe eosinophilic asthma in real life.

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.