Is tezepelumab more than just an anti-eosinophil drug?

Tezepelumab: patient selection and place in therapy in severe asthma

Asthma is a disease characterised by heterogeneous and multifaceted airway inflammation. Despite the availability of effective treatments, a substantial percentage of patients with the type 2 (T2)-high, but mainly the T2-low, phenotype complain of persistent symptoms, airflow limitation, and poor response to treatments. Currently available biologicals target T2 cytokines, but no monoclonal antibodies or other specific therapeutic options are available for non-T2 asthma. However, targeted therapy against alarmins is radically changing this perspective. The development of alarmin-targeted therapies, of which tezepelumab (TZP) is the first example, may offer broad action on inflammatory pathways as well as an enhanced therapeutic effect on epithelial dysfunction. In this regard, TZP demonstrated positive results not only in patients with severe T2 asthma but also those with non-allergic, non-eosinophilic disease. Therefore, it is necessary to identify clinical features of patients who can benefit from an upstream targeted therapy such as anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin. The aims of this narrative review are to understand the role of alarmins in asthma pathogenesis and epithelial dysfunction, examine the rationale underlying the indication of TZP treatment in severe asthma, summarise the results of clinical studies, and recognise the specific characteristics of patients potentially eligible for TZP treatment.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes

(1) Background: Over the past 20 years, monoclonal antibodies have been developed for the treatment of severe asthma, with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to define their safety and efficacy. The growing availability of biologics, which until now have only been available for T2-high asthma, has been further enriched by the arrival of tezepelumab. (2) Methods: This review aims to evaluate the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in RCTs of biologics for severe asthma to understand how they could potentially predict outcomes and how they can help differentiate between available options. (3) Results: The studies reviewed demonstrated that all biologic agents are effective in improving asthma control, especially with regard to reducing exacerbation rates and OCS use. As we have seen, in this regard, there are few data on omalizumab and none yet on tezepelumab. In analysing exacerbations and average doses of OCSs, pivotal studies on benralizumab have enrolled more seriously ill patients. Secondary outcomes, such as improvement in lung function and quality of life, showed better results-especially for dupilumab and tezepelumab. (4) Conclusion: Biologics are all effective, albeit with important differences. What fundamentally guides the choice is the patient's clinical history, the endotype represented by biomarkers (especially blood eosinophils), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis).

Pediatric obesity and severe asthma: Targeting pathways driving inflammation

Asthma affects more than 300 million people of all ages worldwide, including about 10-15% of school-aged children, and its prevalence is increasing. Severe asthma (SA) is a particular and rare phenotype requiring treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller and/or systemic glucocorticoid courses to achieve symptom control or remaining "uncontrolled" despite this therapy. In SA, other diagnoses have been excluded, and potential exacerbating factors have been addressed. Notably, obese asthmatics are at higher risk of developing SA. Obesity is both a major risk factor and a disease modifier of asthma in children and adults: two main "obese asthma" phenotypes have been described in childhood with high or low levels of Type 2 inflammation biomarkers, respectively, the former characterized by early onset and eosinophilic inflammation and the latter by neutrophilic inflammation and late-onset. Nevertheless, the interplay between obesity and asthma is far more complex and includes obese tissue-driven inflammatory pathways, mechanical factors, comorbidities, and poor response to corticosteroids. This review outlines the most recent findings on SA in obese children, particularly focusing on inflammatory pathways, which are becoming of pivotal importance in order to identify selective targets for specific treatments, such as biological agents.

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

Challenges in severe asthma: Do we need new drugs or new biomarkers?

Severe asthma is a complex, heterogenous airway condition. There have been significant advances in severe asthma management in the past decade using monoclonal antibody therapies that target the inflammatory component of the disease. Patient selection has been paramount for the success of these biologicals, leading to significant interest in biomarkers to guide treatment. Some severe asthmatics remain suboptimally controlled despite trials of biologicals and many of these patients still require chronic systemic corticosteroids. New therapeutics are currently in development to address this unmet need. However, whether these patients could be better treated by using novel biomarkers that inform selection among currently available biologics, and that objectively measure disease control is unclear. In this review, we examine the currently used biomarkers that guide severe asthma management and emerging biomarkers that may improve asthma therapy in the future.

Eosinophilic inflammation: An Appealing Target for Pharmacologic Treatments in Severe Asthma

Severe asthma is characterized by different endotypes driven by complex pathologic mechanisms. In most patients with both allergic and non-allergic asthma, predominant eosinophilic airway inflammation is present. Given the central role of eosinophilic inflammation in the pathophysiology of most cases of severe asthma and considering that severe eosinophilic asthmatic patients respond partially or poorly to corticosteroids, in recent years, research has focused on the development of targeted anti-eosinophil biological therapies; this review will focus on the unique and particular biology of the eosinophil, as well as on the current knowledge about the pathobiology of eosinophilic inflammation in asthmatic airways. Finally, current and prospective anti-eosinophil therapeutic strategies will be discussed, examining the reason why eosinophilic inflammation represents an appealing target for the pharmacological treatment of patients with severe asthma.

Novel Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma Endotypes

Severe asthma comprises several heterogeneous phenotypes, underpinned by complex pathomechanisms known as endotypes. The latter are driven by intercellular networks mediated by molecular components which can be targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, currently available antibodies are directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13), as well as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and other alarmins. Among these therapeutic strategies, the best choice should be made according to the phenotypic/endotypic features of each patient with severe asthma, who can thus respond with significant clinical and functional improvements. Conversely, very poor options so far characterize the experimental pipelines referring to the perspective biological management of non-type 2 severe asthma, which thereby needs to be the focus of future thorough research.