A Phase 1 study of the long-acting anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody GSK3511294 in patients with asthma

Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Current and Emerging

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is categorized phenotypically into CRS with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP, CRSsNP). Endotyping categorizes the disease based on immune cell activity and inflammatory mechanisms into Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3. The Type 2 endotype is the most researched and associated with asthma, atopic disease, and severe CRSwNP. For patients with poorly controlled CRSwNP, there are 3 approved biologic treatments: omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab. Many other biologics are being tested in Type 2, non-Type 2, and mixed endotypes in CRSwNP and CRSsNP. These studies will play a significant role in shaping the future of CRS management.

Biologics in Asthma: Emerging Biologics

Advances in our understanding of asthma pathophysiology have led to the advent of multiple targeted asthma therapies such as biologics. However, partial response to biologics occurs, indicating residual disease activity in some patients. Hence, there exists a need for new therapies that focus on novel pathways, alongside perhaps evaluation of combination biologic therapies and modulators of downstream cytokine activation. Therefore, although our current focus is on biologics; it is critical to take a more holistic approach including consideration for nonbiologic therapies that have the potential to significantly advance asthma care.

Approach to the patient with eosinophilia in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and biologicals

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we aim to explore the optimal approach to patients presenting with eosinophilia, considering recent advances in diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Specifically, we focus on the integration of novel therapies into clinical practice to improve patient outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advanced insights into the clinical and genetic features of eosinophilic disorders have prompted revisions in diagnostic criteria by the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). These changes reflect a growing understanding of disease pathogenesis and the development of targeted treatment options. The therapeutic landscape now encompasses a range of established and novel therapies. For reactive conditions, drugs targeting the eosinophilopoiesis, such as those aimed at interleukin-5 or its receptor, have demonstrated significant potential in decreasing blood eosinophil levels and minimizing disease flare-ups and relapse. These therapies have the potential to mitigate the side effects commonly associated with prolonged use of oral corticosteroids or immunosuppressants. Myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase (TK) gene fusions are managed by various TK inhibitors with variable efficacy. Diagnosis and treatment rely on a multidisciplinary approach. By incorporating novel treatment options into clinical practice, physicians across different disciplines involved in the management of eosinophilic disorders can offer more personalized and effective care to patients. However, challenges remain in accurately diagnosing and risk-stratifying patients, as well as in navigating the complexities of treatment selection.

Twice-Yearly Depemokimab in Severe Asthma with an Eosinophilic Phenotype

BACKGROUND

Depemokimab is an ultra-long-acting biologic therapy with enhanced binding affinity for interleukin-5 that may enable effective 6-month dosing intervals.

METHODS

In these phase 3A, randomized, placebo-controlled replicate trials, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of depemokimab in patients with severe asthma and an eosinophilic phenotype characterized by a high eosinophil count (≥300 cells per microliter in the previous 12 months or ≥150 cells per microliter at screening) and a history of exacerbations despite the receipt of medium- or high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either depemokimab (at a dose of 100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo at weeks 0 and 26, plus standard care. The primary end point was the annualized rate of exacerbations at 52 weeks. Secondary end points, which were analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the change from baseline in the score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and asthma symptom reports at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Across the two trials, 792 patients underwent randomization and 762 were included in the full analysis; 502 were assigned to receive depemokimab and 260 to receive placebo. The annualized rate of exacerbations was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI]), 0.36 to 0.58) with depemokimab and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.43) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001) in SWIFT-1 and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70) with depemokimab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.41) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.73; P<0.001) in SWIFT-2. No significant between-group difference in the change from baseline in the SGRQ score was observed in either trial, so no statistical inference was drawn on subsequent secondary end points. The proportion of patients with any adverse event was similar in the two groups in both trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Depemokimab reduced the annualized rate of exacerbations among patients with severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype. (Funded by GSK; SWIFT-1 and SWIFT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04719832 and NCT04718103.).

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in allergy: Targeting IgE, cytokine, and alarmin pathways

The etiology of allergy is closely linked to type 2 inflammatory responses ultimately leading to the production of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), a key driver of many allergic conditions. At a high level, initial allergen exposure disrupts epithelial integrity, triggering local inflammation via alarmins including IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP, which activate type 2 innate lymphoid cells as well as other immune cells to secrete type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, promoting Th2 cell development and eosinophil recruitment. Th2 cell dependent B cell activation promotes the production of allergen-specific IgE, which stably binds to basophils and mast cells. Rapid degranulation of these cells upon allergen re-exposure leads to allergic symptoms. Recent advances in our understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying allergic pathophysiology have significantly shaped the development of therapeutic intervention strategies. In this review, we highlight key therapeutic targets within the allergic cascade with a particular focus on past, current and future treatment approaches using monoclonal antibodies. Specific targeting of alarmins, type 2 cytokines and IgE has shown varying degrees of clinical benefit in different allergic indications including asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, food allergies and eosinophilic esophagitis. While multiple therapeutic antibodies have been approved for clinical use, scientists are still working on ways to improve on current treatment approaches. Here, we provide context to understand therapeutic targeting strategies and their limitations, discussing both knowledge gaps and promising future directions to enhancing clinical efficacy in allergic disease management.

A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of SHR-1905, a long-acting anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin antibody, in healthy subjects

Introduction

Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is integral to inducing innate and T helper two cell inflammation that leads to clinical symptoms of asthma. SHR-1905 is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 kappa monoclonal antibody that inhibits TSLP bioactivity, developed for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma. This phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled single ascending dose study assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of subcutaneous SHR-1905 in healthy subjects.

Methods

Five dose cohorts were planned (50, 100, 200, 400, and 600 mg) and subjects were randomized (8:2) in each cohort to receive SHR-1905 or placebo with a follow-up period up to Day 253.

Results

The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild and the incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the SHR-1905 and the placebo groups. The maximum serum concentration was reached 7.0-17.6 days after injection. The serum concentration of SHR-1905 increased with increasing dose level, and SHR-1905 exposure exhibited in a slightly greater-than-dose-proportional manner from 50 to 600 mg. SHR-1905 had a prolonged serum half-life around 80 days supporting every 6-month dosing. In SHR-1905 treated subjects, 15% tested positive for anti-drug antibodies post-dose with no apparent effect on corresponding PK profiles or safety.

Conclusion

SHR-1905 demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile with a long half-life in healthy subjects after a single administration in the dose range of 50-600 mg.

Clinical Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04800263.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of SHR-1703, an innovative long-acting anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, in healthy subjects: a randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation, placebo-controlled phase I study

OBJECTIVE

SHR-1703 is a novel humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody with high IL-5 affinity and prolonged half-life, aiming to control eosinophil-related diseases. The study intended to evaluate pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of SHR-1703 in healthy subjects.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose escalation phase I study was conducted. 42 subjects were allocated to sequentially receive single subcutaneous injection of 20, 75, 150, 300, and 400 mg SHR-1703 or placebo.

RESULTS

After administration, SHR-1703 was slowly absorbed with median Tmax ranging from 8.5 to 24.5 days. Mean t1/2 in 150 to 400 mg doses was 86 to 100 days. Cmax and AUC increased in nearly dose-proportional pattern over range of 75 to 400 mg SHR-1703. After receiving SHR-1703, peripheral blood eosinophils (EOS) greatly decreased from baseline, which showed no significant change from baseline in placebo group. Magnitude and duration of reduction of EOS rose with increased dosing of SHR-1703. In 400 mg dose, remarkable efficacy of reducing EOS maintained up to approximately 6 months post single administration. Moreover, SHR-1703 exhibited low immunogenicity (2.9%), favorable safety, and tolerability in healthy subjects.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of SHR-1703 support further clinical development of SHR-1703 in eosinophil-associated diseases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04480762).

World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

The eosinophilias encompass a broad range of non-hematologic (secondary or reactive) and hematologic (primary or clonal) disorders with the potential for end-organ damage.

DIAGNOSIS

Hypereosinophilia (HE) has generally been defined as a peripheral blood eosinophil count greater than 1.5 × 109/L, and may be associated with tissue damage. After the exclusion of secondary causes of eosinophilia, diagnostic evaluation of primary eosinophilias relies on a combination of various tests. They include morphologic review of the blood and marrow, standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization, molecular testing and flow immunophenotyping to detect histopathologic or clonal evidence for an acute or chronic hematolymphoid neoplasm.

RISK STRATIFICATION

Disease prognosis relies on identifying the subtype of eosinophilia. After evaluation of secondary causes of eosinophilia, the 2022 World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification endorse a semi-molecular classification scheme of disease subtypes. This includes the major category "myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions" (MLN-eo-TK), and the MPN subtype, "chronic eosinophilic leukemia" (CEL). Lymphocyte-variant HE is an aberrant T-cell clone-driven reactive eosinophila, and idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a diagnosis of exclusion.

RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY

The goal of therapy is to mitigate eosinophil-mediated organ damage. For patients with milder forms of eosinophilia (e.g., <1.5 × 109/L) without symptoms or signs of organ involvement, a watch and wait approach with close follow-up may be undertaken. Identification of rearranged PDGFRA or PDGFRB is critical because of the exquisite responsiveness of these diseases to imatinib. Pemigatinib was recently approved for patients with relapsed or refractory FGFR1-rearranged neoplasms. Corticosteroids are first-line therapy for patients with lymphocyte-variant HE and HES. Hydroxyurea and interferon-α have demonstrated efficacy as initial treatment and in steroid-refractory cases of HES. Mepolizumab, an interleukin-5 (IL-5) antagonist monoclonal antibody, is approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration for patients with idiopathic HES. Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have been used for aggressive forms of HES and CEL, with outcomes reported for limited numbers of patients. Targeted therapies such as the IL-5 receptor antibody benralizumab, IL-5 monoclonal antibody depemokimab, and various tyrosine kinase inhibitors for MLN-eo-TK, are under active investigation.

Pathogenesis-based application of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis: Current and future perspectives

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is heterogeneous and contains diverse pathogenesis including type 1, type 2, and/or type 3 inflammation. For severe type 2 CRS especially CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), biologics that target inflammatory molecules have recently been applied along with further changes in the treatment algorithm for CRS. Currently, a completed phase 3 clinical trial for biologics for severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to surgery and/or intranasal corticosteroids, including omalizumab (anti-IgE), mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα), and dupilumab (anti-IL-4Rα), have all shown efficacy. Similar phase 3 clinical trials for tezepelumab (anti-TSLP) and etokimab (anti-IL-33) are now underway and completed, respectively. Further studies need to evaluate how to optimally and cost-effectively use biologics for CRS and determine if any biomarkers are indicative of which biologics should be administered. A definition of complete and/or clinical remission of CRS is also needed to determine when to reduce or discontinue biologics. In addition, more precise basic research on CRS, such as endotyping and genotyping, will need to be undertaken in order to determine novel targets for biologics.

Immunogenicity of biologics used in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is a major global disease affecting adults and children, which can lead to hospitalization and death due to breathing difficulties. Although targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have revolutionized treatment of severe asthma, some patients still fail to respond. Here we critically evaluate the literature on biologic therapy failure in asthma patients with particular reference to anti-drug antibody production, and subsequent loss of response, as the potential primary cause of drug failure in asthma patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Encouragingly, asthma in most cases responds to treatment, including the use of an increasing number of biologic drugs in moderate to severe disease. This includes monoclonal antibody inhibitors of immunoglobulin E and cytokines, including interleukin 4, 5, or 13 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. These limit mast cell and eosinophil activity that cause the symptomatic small airways obstruction and exacerbations.

SUMMARY

Despite humanization of the antibodies, it is evident that benralizumab; dupilumab; mepolizumab; omalizumab; reslizumab and tezepelumab all induce anti-drug antibodies to some extent. These can contribute to adverse events including infusion reactions, serum sickness, anaphylaxis and potentially disease activity due to loss of therapeutic function. Monitoring anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may allow prediction of future treatment-failure in some individuals allowing treatment cessation and switching therefore potentially limiting disease breakthrough.

Personalized and Precision Medicine in Asthma and Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Role of T2 Target Therapy

The role of type 2 inflammation has been progressively associated with many diseases, including severe asthma, atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and, recently, eosinophilic esophagitis. Despite this, the association between asthma and esophagitis is still poorly known, and this is probably because of the low prevalence of each disease and the even lower association between them. Nonetheless, observations in clinical trials and, subsequently, in real life, have allowed researchers to observe how drugs acting on type 2 inflammation, initially developed and marketed for severe asthma, could be effective also in treating eosinophilic esophagitis. For this reason, clinical trials specifically designed for the use of drugs targeted to type 2 inflammation were also developed for eosinophilic esophagitis. The results of clinical trials are presently promising and envisage the use of biologicals that are also likely to be employed in the field of gastroenterology in the near future. This review focuses on the use of biologicals for type 2 inflammation in cases of combined severe asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Current and emerging biological therapies for Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps with type 2 inflammation

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), especially CRSwNP with type 2 inflammation, remains the most difficult-to-treat subtype with high prevalence worldwide. The emergence of biologics has the potential to fulfill the unmet medical needs of patients with CRSwNP driven by type 2 inflammation.

AREAS COVERED

A current review of the literature was performed to overview current and emerging biological therapies in the treatment of CRSwNP.

EXPERT OPINION

In an era of precision medicine, biologics have been given expectations to provide customized therapies to patients with CRSwNP, particularly those with refractory CRSwNP. Large clinical trials and real-world experiences are both essential for the application of biologics. Moreover, to make biological therapy more tailored to patients, an in-depth understanding of the different mechanisms of biologics, further elucidating the relationship between biologics and conventional medical and surgical treatments, and identifying predictive biomarkers warrant thorough investigations.

The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

The last decade has seen significant developments in the field of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Translational research borne from knowledge of the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammatory disease of the lower airways and the strong association with CRSwNP, has led to major therapeutic breakthroughs, with phase 3 trials of four biologics completed at the time of writing, and more underway. This article explores the evidence behind biologics for CRSwNP, the guidance on their use and the health economic factors influencing their position amongst the established therapeutic options for this common chronic condition.

Biologic drugs in the treatment of chronic inflammatory pulmonary diseases: recent developments and future perspectives

Chronic inflammatory diseases of the lung are some of the leading causes of mortality and significant morbidity worldwide. Despite the tremendous burden these conditions put on global healthcare, treatment options for most of these diseases remain scarce. Inhaled corticosteroids and beta-adrenergic agonists, while effective for symptom control and widely available, are linked to severe and progressive side effects, affecting long-term patient compliance. Biologic drugs, in particular peptide inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies show promise as therapeutics for chronic pulmonary diseases. Peptide inhibitor-based treatments have already been proposed for a range of diseases, including infectious disease, cancers and even Alzheimer disease, while monoclonal antibodies have already been implemented as therapeutics for a range of conditions. Several biologic agents are currently being developed for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and pulmonary sarcoidosis. This article is a review of the biologics already employed in the treatment of chronic inflammatory pulmonary diseases and recent progress in the development of the most promising of those treatments, with particular focus on randomised clinical trial outcomes.

Subsets of Eosinophils in Asthma, a Challenge for Precise Treatment

The existence of eosinophils was documented histopathologically in the first half of the 19th century. However, the term “eosinophils” was first used by Paul Ehrlich in 1878. Since their discovery and description, their existence has been associated with asthma, allergies, and antihelminthic immunity. Eosinophils may also be responsible for various possible tissue pathologies in many eosinophil-associated diseases. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the understanding of the nature of this cell population has undergone a fundamental reassessment, and in 2010, J. J. Lee proposed the concept of “LIAR” (Local Immunity And/or Remodeling/Repair), underlining the extensive immunoregulatory functions of eosinophils in the context of health and disease. It soon became apparent that mature eosinophils (in line with previous morphological studies) are not structurally, functionally, or immunologically homogeneous cell populations. On the contrary, these cells form subtypes characterized by their further development, immunophenotype, sensitivity to growth factors, localization, role and fate in tissues, and contribution to the pathogenesis of various diseases, including asthma. The eosinophil subsets were recently characterized as resident (rEos) and inflammatory (iEos) eosinophils. During the last 20 years, the biological therapy of eosinophil diseases, including asthma, has been significantly revolutionized. Treatment management has been improved through the enhancement of treatment effectiveness and a decrease in the adverse events associated with the formerly ultimately used systemic corticosteroids. However, as we observed from real-life data, the global treatment efficacy is still far from optimal. A fundamental condition, “sine qua non”, for correct treatment management is a thorough evaluation of the inflammatory phenotype of the disease. We believe that a better understanding of eosinophils would lead to more precise diagnostics and classification of asthma subtypes, which could further improve treatment outcomes. The currently validated asthma biomarkers (eosinophil count, production of NO in exhaled breath, and IgE synthesis) are insufficient to unveil super-responders among all severe asthma patients and thus give only a blurred picture of the adepts for treatment. We propose an emerging approach consisting of a more precise characterization of pathogenic eosinophils in terms of the definition of their functional status or subset affiliation by flow cytometry. We believe that the effort to find new eosinophil-associated biomarkers and their rational use in treatment algorithms may ameliorate the response rate to biological therapy in patients with severe asthma.

Eosinophilic respiratory disorders and the impact of biologics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Eosinophils are involved in combating parasitic, bacterial, viral infections as well as certain malignancies. However, they are also implicated in an array of upper and lower respiratory disease states. Through a deeper understanding of disease pathogenesis, targeted biologic therapies have revolutionized glucocorticoid sparing treatment of eosinophilic respiratory diseases. This review will focus on the impact of novel biologics on the management of asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Key immunologic pathways affecting Type 2 inflammation through immunoglobulin E (IgE), interleukin (IL-4), IL-5, IL-13, and upstream alarmins such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), have led to novel drug developments. We explore the mechanism of action for Omalizumab, Mepolizumab, Benralizumab, Reslizumab, Dupilumab, and Tezepelumab, their respective Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications, and biomarkers affecting treatment decisions. We also highlight investigational therapeutics that are likely to impact the future management of eosinophilic respiratory diseases.

SUMMARY

Insight into the biology of eosinophilic respiratory diseases has been critical for understanding disease pathogenesis and has contributed to the development of effective eosinophil-targeted biologic interventions.

Translating the biology of β common receptor-engaging cytokines into clinical medicine

The family of cytokines that comprises IL-3, IL-5, and GM-CSF was discovered over 30 years ago, and their biological activities and resulting impact in clinical medicine has continued to expand ever since. Originally identified as bone marrow growth factors capable of acting on hemopoietic progenitor cells to induce their proliferation and differentiation into mature blood cells, these cytokines are also recognized as key mediators of inflammation and the pathobiology of diverse immunologic diseases. This increased understanding of the functional repertoire of IL-3, IL-5, and GM-CSF has led to an explosion of interest in modulating their functions for clinical management. Key to the successful clinical translation of this knowledge is the recognition that these cytokines act by engaging distinct dimeric receptors and that they share a common signaling subunit called β-common or βc. The structural determination of how IL-3, IL-5, and GM-CSF interact with their receptors and linking this to their differential biological functions on effector cells has unveiled new paradigms of cell signaling. This knowledge has paved the way for novel mAbs and other molecules as selective or pan inhibitors for use in different clinical settings.

Investigational Treatments in Phase I and II Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review in Asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma treatment, along with bronchodilators serving as control agents in combination with ICS or reliever therapy. Although current pharmacological treatments improve symptom control, health status, and the frequency and severity of exacerbations, they do not really change the natural course of asthma, including disease remission. Considering the highly heterogeneous nature of asthma, there is a strong need for innovative medications that selectively target components of the inflammatory cascade. The aim of this review was to systematically assess current investigational agents in Phase I and II randomised controlled trials (RCTs) over the last five years. Sixteen classes of novel therapeutic options were identified from 19 RCTs. Drugs belonging to different classes, such as the anti-interleukin (IL)-4Rα inhibitors, anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), anti-IL-17A mAbs, anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) mAbs, epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) inhibitors, bifunctional M₃ receptor muscarinic antagonists/β₂-adrenoceptor agonists (MABAs), and anti-Fel d 1 mAbs, were found to be effective in the treatment of asthma, with lung function being the main assessed outcome across the RCTs. Several novel investigational molecules, particularly biologics, seem promising as future disease-modifying agents; nevertheless, further larger studies are required to confirm positive results from Phase I and II RCTs.

Preclinical development of a long-acting trivalent bispecific nanobody targeting IL-5 for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma

Background

Eosinophilic asthma is a common subtype of severe asthma with high morbidity and mortality. The cytokine IL-5 has been shown to be a key driver of the development and progression of disease. Although approved monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting IL-5/IL-5R have shown good safety and efficacy, some patients have inadequate responses and frequent dosing results in medication nonadherence.

Results

We constructed a novel trivalent bispecific nanobody (Nb) consisting of 3 VHHs that bind to 2 different epitopes of IL-5 and 1 epitope of albumin derived from immunized phage display libraries. This trivalent IL-5-HSA Nb exhibited similar IL-5/IL-5R blocking activities to mepolizumab (Nucala), an approved targeting IL-5 mAb. Surprisingly, this trivalent Nb was 58 times more active than mepolizumab in inhibiting TF-1-cell proliferation. In primate studies, the trivalent IL-5-HSA Nb showed excellent pharmacokinetic properties, and peripheral blood eosinophil levels remained significantly suppressed for two months after a single dose. In addition, the trivalent IL-5-HSA Nb could be produced on a large scale in a P. pastoris X-33 yeast system with high purity and good thermal stability.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the trivalent bispecific IL-5-HSA Nb has the potential to be a next-generation therapeutic agent targeting IL-5 for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-022-02240-1.