Real-world study in severe eosinophilic asthma patients refractory to anti-IL5 biological agents treated with benralizumab in Spain (ORBE study)

Clinical characteristics of complete responders versus non-complete responders to omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma: a long-term retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Some patients with severe asthma may benefit from treatment with biologics, but evidence has been mostly collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients' characteristics are different from those encountered in asthma patients in the real-world setting. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of complete responders versus non-complete responders to long-term treatment with biologics in patients with severe asthma attended in routine daily practice.

METHODS

Data of a cohort of 90 patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for at least 12 months and were followed up to March 2022. Data recorded included clinical characteristics and effectiveness of treatment (exacerbation, Asthma Control Test [ACT] score, lung function, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]), FeNO, and blood eosinophils at baseline, at 12 months, and at the end of follow-up. Complete response is considered if, in addition to not presenting exacerbations or the use of mOCS, the ACT score was >20 and, the FEV1 >80% predicted.

RESULTS

An improvement in all asthma control parameters was observed after 12 months of treatment and a mean follow-up of 55 months. After 12 months of treatment 27.2% of patients met the criteria of complete response and this percentage even increased to 35.3% at the end of follow-up. Long-term complete response was associated to better lung function with mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment and to less previous exacerbations in the benralizumab group. The main cause of not achieving a complete response was the persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab improved the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs in the long term follow-up. Airflow obstruction, however, was a predictor of a non-complete response to biologics.

Anti-IL-4R versus anti-IL-5/5R after anti-IL-5/5R failure in asthma: An emulated target trial

BACKGROUND

Switching biologics is now common practice in severe eosinophilic asthma. After insufficient response to anti-IL-5 or 5 receptor (anti-IL-5/5R), the optimal switch between an anti-IL-4R mAb (interclass) or another anti-IL-5/5R drug (intraclass) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the effectiveness of these 2 strategies in asthma control in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and insufficient response to an anti-IL-5/5R mAb.

METHODS

We emulated a target randomized trial using observational data from the Recherche sur les AsthMes SEvèreS (RAMSES) cohort. Eligible patients were switched to an anti-IL-4R mAb or another anti-IL-5/5R drug after insufficient response to an anti-IL-5/5R mAb. The primary outcome was the change in Asthma Control Test score at 6 months.

RESULTS

Among the 2046 patients in the cohort, 151 were included in the study: 103 switched to an anti-IL-4R mAb and 48 to another anti-IL-5/5R. At 6 months, the difference in Asthma Control Test score improvement was not statistically significant (mean difference groups, 0.82 [-0.47 to 2.10], P = .213). The interclass group exhibited greater cumulative reduction in oral corticosteroid dose (Pinter-intra, -1.05 g [-1.76 to -0.34], P = .041). The interclass group had a better effect, although not significantly, on reducing exacerbations (Δinter-intra, -0.37 [-0.77 to 0.02], P = .124) and increasing lung function (FEV1) (126.8 mL [-12.7 to 266.4], P = .124).

CONCLUSIONS

After anti-IL-5/5R mAb insufficient response, switching to dupilumab demonstrated similar improvement in Asthma Control Test scores compared with intraclass switching. However, it appeared more effective in reducing oral corticosteroid use. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Real-World Data on Tezepelumab in Patients With Severe Asthma in Germany

BACKGROUND

Tezepelumab is a novel biologic blocking thymic stromal lymphopoetin, approved for severe asthma irrespective of biomarker levels or phenotype.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize a real-world tezepelumab patient cohort and the efficacy among various asthma phenotypes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, multicenter study on patients with severe asthma initiating tezepelumab. Clinical response was evaluated at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

We included 129 patients with an average age of 52.5 ± 13.1 years, 59.7% were female. The majority (86.0%) had increased type 2 (T2) biomarkers, 68.2% an allergic and 31.8% an eosinophilic phenotype. 23.3% of patients were biologic-naive. 22 (18.2%) patients discontinued tezepelumab therapy owing to suspected side effects or insufficient efficacy. At 6 months' follow-up, median reduction in annualized exacerbation rate was-1 [25th percentile; 75% percentile {-2.9; 0.0}], the reduction of oral corticosteroid dose among patients with long-term oral corticosteroid therapy was -5 mg [-10; 0] and the Asthma Control Test (ACT) improved by 2 [0; 5] points. A treatment response according to Biologic Asthma Response Score of 80.8% was demonstrated. There were no significant differences in treatment response between T2-high versus T2-low, early- versus adult-onset and eosinophilic versus non-eosinophilic asthma. Prior treatment with other biologics was associated with inferior treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-life cohort, including a large proportion of patients with history of previous biologic use and encompassing various subgroups, the majority responded to tezepelumab. Our data further suggest a steroid-sparing effect of tezepelumab.

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.

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

Advancing Care in Severe Asthma: The Art of Switching Biologics

Biologics targeting IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP are crucial in severe asthma treatment. Research, including randomized controlled trials and real-world studies, has been conducted to assess their efficacy and identify patient characteristics that may predict positive responses. The effectiveness of switching biologics, especially given overlaps in treatment eligibility, and the clinical outcomes post-cessation are critical areas of investigation. This work reviews the effects of switching between these biologics and the indicators of treatment success or failure. Insights are primarily derived from real-world experiences, focusing on patients transitioning from one monoclonal antibody to another. Moreover, this review aims to provide insights into the effectiveness, safety, and broader implications of switching biologics, enhancing understanding for clinicians to optimize severe asthma management. The article underlines the importance of a patient-centered approach, biomarker assessment, and the evolving nature of asthma treatment in making informed decisions about biologic therapy.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients enrolled in the Connect 360 benralizumab patient support programme in the UK: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patient support programmes (PSPs) allow patients with chronic diseases to receive treatment and support at home. This study describes the Connect 360 PSP delivery and impact on patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction and adherence/persistence among benralizumab-treated patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA).

METHODS

A non-interventional retrospective cohort study using data collected during routine care in the Connect 360 PSP. All consenting enrollees (≥18 years) were included in the study.

RESULTS

746 patients formed the study cohort. Mean (SD) age was 53.7 (14.5) years on PSP entry; 38.3% were female (38.7% unknown). 79.6% of patients were experienced biological therapy users. Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use was reported in 48.4% of patients at baseline and 34.8% at 48 weeks. 8.2% of patients reported asthma hospitalisation in the previous 6 months at 24 weeks vs 3.0% at 48 weeks. Mean (SD) 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) scores were 2.7 (1.5) at baseline vs 1.6 (1.3) at 48 weeks. Mean (SD) patient satisfaction scores remained high (4.5 of 5 (1.0) at baseline; 4.7 of 5 (0.6) at 48 weeks). 28.3% of patients were considered adherent at 24 weeks, increasing to 98.3% when supplemented with sales/delivery data (sensitivity analysis). Discontinuation from PSP/benralizumab was low at 24 (3.4%/3.0%) and 48 (12.6%/5.8%) weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Connect 360 PSP achieved high levels of satisfaction and persistence, with indications of positive outcomes including OCS use, hospitalisation and ACQ-6. The study was conducted during COVID-19, so it provides reassurance that patients with SEA receiving benralizumab may be supported safely and effectively at home.

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

Advances in pathophysiological understanding and the elucidation of a type 2 inflammatory signature with interleukins 4, 5 and 13 at its center have led to the development of targeted antibody therapies that are now approved for the treatment of severe asthma. In suitable patients, these medications reduce asthma exacerbations and the necessity for oral corticosteroids, improve asthma control, quality of life and lung function. A proportion of patients with severe asthma may even achieve remission under ongoing biologic therapy. Type-2 inflammatory comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe asthma, sharing overlapping pathophysiology and may similarly respond to biologic treatment. Here, we give an overview of the six biologic therapies currently approved for severe asthma and review randomized clinical trials and real-life studies in asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. We also discuss selection of biologics according to licensing criteria, asthma phenotype and biomarkers, monitoring of treatment response and proceedings in case of insufficient outcome under therapy.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Real-World Effectiveness Study of Benralizumab for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: ZEPHYR 2

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact.

METHODS

Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/μL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index.

RESULTS

There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/μL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.

Switching Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma

Currently, three classes of monoclonal antibodies targeting type 2 inflammation pathways are available in Italy for the treatment of severe asthma: anti-IgE (Omalizumab), anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα (Mepolizumab and Benralizumab), and anti-IL-4Rα (Dupilumab). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life studies have been conducted to define their efficacy and identify baseline patients' characteristics potentially predictive of favorable outcomes. Switching to another monoclonal antibody is recommended in case of a lack of benefits. The aim of this work is to review the current knowledge on the impact of switching biological therapies in severe asthma as well as on predictors of treatment response or failure. Almost all of the information about switching from a previous monoclonal antibody to another comes from a real-life setting. In the available studies, the most frequent initial biologic was Omalizumab and patients who were switched because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate despite OCS dependence. The choice of the most suitable treatment may be guided by the patient's clinical history, biomarkers of endotype (mainly blood eosinophils and FeNO), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis). Due to overlapping eligibility, larger investigations characterizing the clinical profile of patients benefiting from switching to different monoclonal antibodies are needed.

Real-World clinical outcomes of asthma patients switched from reslizumab to mepolizumab or benralizumab

Introduction

Approximately 3%-10% of asthma patients will remain uncontrolled despite maximum, optimal conventional therapy. Treatment of severe refractory asthma often involves the use of targeted biological therapy. Randomised controlled trials have shown improvements in clinical parameters with these treatments but real-world data is lacking.

Methods

The clinical parameters, frequency of exacerbations, number of hospital admissions, asthma control questionnaire score (ACQ), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose of twenty asthma patients switched from reslizumab to benralizumab or mepolizumab at 1 year prior and 6 months after switching were compared, with adjustments for time.

Results

The mean frequency of exacerbations (0.35 v 0.3) and the mean ACQ were essentially unchanged (1.6 v 1.5) following the switch. The number of hospital admissions was one in the 6 months post switch compared to one in 1-year pre switch. 25% of patients were on maintenance OCS before and after switching but one patient required an increased dose post switch resulting in an increase in the mean maintenance OCS dose (1.6 mg to 2.4 mg). The mean FEV₁ was unchanged (80% v 77.9%) six months post switching. Regarding asthma control (n = 19), 47.4% were controlled pre and post switch (ACQ < 1.5), 36.8% remained uncontrolled despite switching, 10.5% improved control while 5.3% disimproved.

Conclusion

We present real-world clinical outcomes of asthma patients switched from reslizumab to either benralizumab or mepolizumab without a loss of clinical effectiveness in the majority.

Impact of benralizumab on asthma exacerbation-related medical healthcare resource utilization and medical costs: results from the ZEPHYR 2 study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Benralizumab is a biologic add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations, but data on the associated medical utilization are scarce. This retrospective study evaluated the economic value of benralizumab by analyzing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in a large patient population in the US.

METHODS

Insurance claims data (11/2016-6/2020) were analyzed. A pre-post design was used to compare asthma exacerbation rates, medical HRU and medical costs in the 12 months pre vs. post index (day after benralizumab initiation). Patients were aged ≥12 years, with ≥2 records of benralizumab and ≥2 asthma exacerbations pre index, and constituted non-mutually exclusive cohorts: biologic-naïve, biologic-experienced (switched from omalizumab or mepolizumab to benralizumab), or with extended follow-up (18 or 24 months).

RESULTS

In all cohorts (mean age 51-53 years; 67-70% female; biologic-naïve, N = 1,292; biologic-experienced, N = 349; 18-month follow-up, N = 419; 24-month follow-up, N = 156), benralizumab treatment reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation by 53-68% (p < .001). In the biologic-naïve cohort, inpatient admissions decreased by 58%, emergency department visits by 54%, and outpatient visits by 58% post index (all p < .001), with similar reductions in exacerbation-related medical HRU in other cohorts. Exacerbation-related mean total medical costs decreased by 51% in the biologic-naïve cohort ($4691 pre-index, $2289 post-index), with cost differences ranging from 16% to 64% across other cohorts (prior omalizumab: $2686 to $1600; prior mepolizumab: $5990 to $5008; 18-month: $3636 to $1667; 24-month: $4014 to $1449; all p < .001). Medical HRU and cost reductions were durable, decreasing by 64% in year 1 and 66% in year 2 in the 24 month follow-up cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with benralizumab with prior exacerbations experienced reductions in asthma exacerbations and exacerbation-related medical HRU and medical costs regardless of prior biologic use, with the benefits observed for up to 24 months after treatment initiation.

Biologics for severe asthma: The real-world evidence, effectiveness of switching, and prediction factors for the efficacy

Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized controlled trials have established clinical evidence, but a significant portion of patients with severe asthma in real-life settings would have been excluded from those trials. Therefore, real-world research is necessary, and there is a growing body of information about the long-term efficacy and safety of biologics. Multiple clinical phenotypes of severe asthma exist, and it is crucial to choose patients based on their phenotypes. Blood eosinophil count is an important biomarker for anti-IL-5 therapies, and FeNO and eosinophil counts serve as prediction markers for dupilumab. Reliable markers for predicting response, however, have not yet been fully established for omalizumab. Identification of clinical or biological prediction factors is crucial for the path toward clinical remission because the current treatment goal includes clinical remission, which is defined as a realistic goal for remission off treatment. Additionally, since there are now multiple biologic options and overlaps in eligibility for biologics in clinical practice, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of switching the biologics is crucial. Investigations into the clinical trajectory following the cessation of biologics are another important issue. Recent research on omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab's real-world effectiveness, the prediction factor for the efficacy, and the impact of switching or discontinuation will be reviewed and discussed in this review.

Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma

In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.

Eosinophilic Asthma, Phenotypes-Endotypes and Current Biomarkers of Choice

Asthma phenotyping and endotyping are constantly evolving. Currently, several biologic agents have been developed towards a personalized approach to asthma management. This review will focus on different eosinophilic phenotypes and Th2-associated endotypes with eosinophilic inflammation. Additionally, airway remodeling is analyzed as a key feature of asthmatic eosinophilic endotypes. In addition, evidence of biomarkers is examined with a predictive value to identify patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma who may benefit from new treatment options. Finally, there will be a discussion on the results from clinical trials regarding severe eosinophilic asthma and how the inhibition of the eosinophilic pathway by targeted treatments has led to the reduction of recurrent exacerbations.

Effectiveness of Switching to Benralizumab in Severe Refractory Eosinophilic Asthma

Purpose

Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the α subunit of the IL-5 receptor. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of this agent with respect to lung function and symptom control in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of benralizumab after switching previous treatment with other monoclonal antibodies.

Patients and Methods

We performed a multicenter retrospective study under conditions of daily clinical practice. The study population comprised consecutively included patients with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma whose initial treatment with omalizumab or mepolizumab was switched to benralizumab. Patients were evaluated at 4 and 12 months after starting treatment with benralizumab. We analyzed asthma control, number of severe exacerbations, corticosteroid cycles, visits to the emergency department, and hospital admissions, as well as lung function. Similarly, we evaluated the response to treatment according to previously established criteria.

Results

We evaluated 40 patients who switched from omalizumab (n=16) or mepolizumab (n=24) to benralizumab. The reasons for switching were lack of response in 30 cases, adverse effects in 9, and patient request in 1. Switching was followed by a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations, visits to the emergency department, and corticosteroid cycles, as well as improved ACT both at 4 and 12 months. However, no significant improvement in lung function was observed. Asthma control (including complete response and control) was achieved in 55% of patients (n=22) at 12 months. Specifically, a complete response was achieved in 30% of patients at 12 months (66.7% switching from omalizumab and 33.3% from mepolizumab).

Conclusion

Patients diagnosed with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma who experience a partial response with omalizumab or mepolizumab could benefit from switching to benralizumab. This approach can reduce the number of exacerbations, visits to the emergency department, and corticosteroid cycles and improve control of asthma.