Omalizumab reduces corticosteroid use in patients with severe allergic asthma: real-life experience in Israel

Early Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Biologics in Pediatric Allergic Diseases: Preliminary Results from a Prospective Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing interest in biologics for the management of allergic diseases, sparse real-world data are still available in the pediatric population. This study aimed to evaluate the early real-life efficacy and safety of omalizumab for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and Dupilumab for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODS

A prospective study enrolling children aged 6-18 years was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs at 16 weeks of treatment (T1). The effectiveness was measured using validated questionnaires (ACQ-5 for asthma, UAS7 for CSU, and EASI score for AD). Secondary outcome measures included reductions in inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosages, asthma-related hospitalizations/exacerbations, and quality of life (QoL) indicators (iNRS, sNRS, DLQI/cDLQI) for CSU and AD. Safety was expressed according to the descriptions of adverse events provided by EMA and FDA.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of eighteen children (mean age 12.9 ± 3.4 years). The omalizumab treatment significantly reduced ACQ-5 and UAS7 scores (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). In patients with asthma, decreased ICS dosage and hospitalization/exacerbation rates were observed. QoL parameters significantly improved in CSU and AD patients. No severe adverse events were reported for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings validate omalizumab and dupilumab as effective and safe therapeutic options for managing moderate-to-severe allergic diseases in children and adolescents.

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.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody that was globally approved as a personalized treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This review summarizes the knowledge of almost two decades of use of omalizumab to answer some important everyday clinical practice questions, concerning its efficacy and safety and its association with other asthma-related and drug-related parameters. Evidence suggests that omalizumab improves asthma control and reduces the incidence and frequency of exacerbations in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is also effective in those patients in reducing corticosteroid use and healthcare utilization, while it also seems to improve lung function. Several biomarkers have been recognized in predicting its efficacy in its target group of patients, while the optimal duration for evaluating its efficacy is between 16 and 32 weeks.

The Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies on Airway Smooth Muscle Contractility in Asthma: A Systematic Review

Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) represents a central pathophysiological hallmark of asthma, with airway smooth muscle (ASM) being the effector tissue implicated in the onset of AHR. ASM also exerts pro-inflammatory and immunomodulatory actions, by secreting a wide range of cytokines and chemokines. In asthma pathogenesis, the overexpression of several type 2 inflammatory mediators including IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP has been associated with ASM hyperreactivity, all of which can be targeted by humanized monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically assess evidence across the literature on mAbs for the treatment of asthma with respect to their impact on the ASM contractile tone. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab were found to be effective in modulating the contractility of the ASM and preventing the AHR, but no available studies concerning the impact of reslizumab on the ASM were identified from the literature search. Omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab can directly modulate the ASM in asthma, by specifically blocking the interaction between IgE, IL-4, and TSLP, and their receptors are located on the surface of ASM cells. Conversely, mepolizumab and benralizumab have prevalently indirect impacts against AHR by targeting eosinophils and other immunomodulatory effector cells promoting inflammatory processes. AHR has been suggested as the main treatable trait towards precision medicine in patients suffering from eosinophilic asthma, therefore, well-designed head-to-head trials are needed to compare the efficacy of those mAbs that directly target ASM contractility specifically against the AHR in severe asthma, namely omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab.

Oral Corticosteroids Dependence and Biologic Drugs in Severe Asthma: Myths or Facts? A Systematic Review of Real-World Evidence

Airway inflammation represents an important characteristic in asthma, modulating airflow limitation and symptom control, and triggering the risk of asthma exacerbation. Thus, although corticosteroids represent the cornerstone for the treatment of asthma, severe patients may be dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Fortunately, the current humanised monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and reslizumab have been proven to induce an OCS-sparing effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus overcoming the problem of OCS dependence in severe asthma. Nevertheless, a large discrepancy has been recognized between selected patients enrolled in RCTs and non-selected asthmatic populations in real-world settings. It is not possible to exclude that the OCS-sparing effect of mAbs resulting from the RCTs could be different than the real effect resulting in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and correlation analysis to assess whether mAbs are effective in eliciting an OCS-sparing effect and overcoming the OCS dependence in severe asthmatic patients in real-world settings. Overall, real-world studies support the evidence that OCS dependence is a real condition that, however, can be found only in a small number of really severe asthmatic patients. In most patients, the dependence on OCS can be related to modifying factors that, when adequately modulated, may lead to a significant reduction or suspension of OCS maintenance. Conversely, in severe asthmatics in whom OCS resistance is proved by a high daily dose intake, mAbs allow reversion of the OCS dependence, leading to the suspension of OCS therapy in most patients or >50% reduction in the daily OCS dose.

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.

'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.

Real-World Observational Study on the Characteristics and Treatment Patterns of Allergic Asthma Patients Receiving Omalizumab in Canada

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a treatment option for pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma poorly controlled with standard inhaled therapies. Clinical trials and observational studies have demonstrated the efficacy of omalizumab. There is limited real-world evidence on the characteristics and treatment patterns of Canadian asthma patients receiving omalizumab.

OBJECTIVE

We profiled Canadian omalizumab users to estimate time to omalizumab discontinuation and to assess changes in concurrent medication usage before, during, and after therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study that analyzed data from Canadian prescription claims databases. An algorithm was used to select naïve users of omalizumab with an inferred diagnosis of GINA 5-asthma who made a claim for omalizumab from February 1, 2007, to June 2, 2015. Demographic and baseline characteristics were assessed at index. Outcomes examined over the analysis period included (i) daily omalizumab dose per patient and per claim; (ii) omalizumab discontinuation (defined as ≥100-day gap in making omalizumab claims) and its potential predictors (ie, age, sex, province of residence, drug insurer; assessed by Cox Proportional Hazards Model); and (iii) for patients who discontinued omalizumab, changes in concurrent medication usage before, during, and 6 months after omalizumab usage.

RESULTS

The final study cohort consisted of 1160 patients (mean age: 45.8 ± 15.2 years; 64.7% female). During the first year of omalizumab therapy, 29.5% of patients discontinued treatment. The singular characteristic that predicted omalizumab discontinuation with statistical significance was age group (20‒34 years vs 12‒19 years; hazard ratio 1.75, 95% confidence interval 1.11-2.76; P<0.05). There were significant reductions in the use of some concurrent inhaled and oral asthma medications during and/or after omalizumab use (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-third of patients who initiated omalizumab in Canada for refractory, moderate to severe allergic asthma discontinued treatment during the first year.

Severe asthma: oral corticosteroid alternatives and the need for optimal referral pathways

OBJECTIVE

Patients with severe asthma require high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, with or without add-on treatments, to maintain asthma control. Because symptom control remains unsatisfactory in some patients despite these therapies, maintenance therapy with oral corticosteroids (OCS) remains considered a treatment option by physicians. Besides physician-diagnosed exacerbations, many patients intermittently self-medicate with OCS during episodes of worsening symptoms or as a prevention of such episodes. However, long-term OCS use is associated with several comorbidities that may decrease health-related quality of life, worsen prognosis, and should ideally require monitoring and management. In this review, we discuss the adverse effects of OCS use, the OCS-sparing effect of biologics in severe asthma, and the need for optimal referral pathways to ensure the best outcomes for those at-risk asthma patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies with results on the OCS-sparing effect of biologics in adult severe asthma were selected.

RESULTS

Chronic and intermittent OCS use in asthma is associated with considerable adverse effects in asthma. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab reduce the need for OCS in severe asthma, while also reducing the exacerbation rate and improving several patient-related outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Targeted biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of uncontrolled severe asthma by reducing or even eliminating the need for OCS and improving other major outcomes. Novel agents are now rapidly increasing the therapeutic armamentarium, but additional efforts are needed to optimize referral pathways in order to ensure sustainable access to these therapies.

Novel Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma: Targeting the Right Trait

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation that results in a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. Patients with severe asthma represent a substantial share of consumption of healthcare resources and hospitalization. Moreover, these patients are at risk of increased morbidity and mortality. Recently, several phenotypes and endotypes of asthma have been identified. The identification of specific subtypes of asthma is fundamental for optimizing the clinical benefit of novel treatments. Although in most patients the disease can be controlled by some combination of pharmacologic agents, in some 5-10% of patients the disease remains uncontrolled. Several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting pathogenetic molecules (e.g., IgE, IL-5, IL- 5Rα, IL-4, IL-13, TSLP) are currently available or under development for the treatment of different forms of severe type 2 asthma. The identification of diagnostic and predictive biomarkers (e.g., IgE, blood eosinophil count, FeNO, periostin, etc.) has revolutioned the field of targeted therapy in severe asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting Th2-driven inflammation are generally safe in adult patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. The long-term safety of these biologics is a relevant issue that should be addressed. Unfortunately, little is known about non-type 2 asthma. Further studies are needed to identify biomarkers to guide targeted therapies of different forms of non-type 2 asthma.

Economic Impact and Clinical Outcomes of Omalizumab Add-On Therapy for Patients with Severe Persistent Asthma: A Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody indicated as add-on therapy to improve asthma control in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate social, healthcare expenditure and clinical outcomes changes after incorporating omalizumab into standard treatment in the control of severe asthma.

METHODS

In this multicentre retrospective study, a total of 220 patients were included from 15 respiratory medicine departments in the regions of Andalusia and Extremadura (Spain). Effectiveness was calculated as a 3-point increase in the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and a reduction in the annual number of exacerbations. The economic evaluation included both direct and indirect costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Results from the year before and the year after incorporation of omalizumab were compared.

RESULTS

After adding omalizumab, improvement of lung function, asthma and rhinitis according to patient perception, as well as the number of exacerbations and asthma control measured by the ACT score were observed. Globally, both healthcare resources and pharmacological costs decreased after omalizumab treatment, excluding omalizumab cost. When only direct costs were considered, the ICER was €1712 (95% CI 1487-1995) per avoided exacerbation and €3859 (95% CI 3327-4418) for every 3-point increase in the ACT score. When both direct and indirect costs were considered, the ICER was €1607 (95% CI 1385-1885) for every avoided exacerbation and €3555 (95% CI 3012-4125) for every 3-point increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab was shown to be an effective add-on therapy for patients with persistent severe asthma and allowed reducing key drivers of asthma-related costs.

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

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a recombinant monoclonal anti-IgE antibody approved in the US as add-on treatment in moderate-to-severe allergic asthma (in severe allergic asthma [SAA] in Europe). A 2016 review of 24 real-world effectiveness studies in SAA published between 2008-2015 concluded that omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in objective and subjective outcomes with benefits extending beyond 2 years. Several new real-world studies have been published since, bringing the total to 42 studies. Areas covered: This systematic review of 42 studies published since 2008 updates and extends the 2016 review on the real-word evidence on omalizumab in SAA. It offers greater granularity as to time windows within which outcomes are reported and includes studies extending well beyond 4 years post omalizumab initiation. Expert commentary: This review firmly establishes the short-term effectiveness of omalizumab in adolescent and adult patients with SAA at 1 year, and provides strong evidence of long-term effectiveness up to 4 years and emergent evidence of effectiveness beyond 4 years. In the aggregate, these 42 studies underscore the long-term effectiveness of omalizumab in terms of: reducing exacerbations and symptoms, achieving asthma control, improving lung function, enhancing quality of life, decreasing emergency department visits and hospitalizations, and promoting concomitant medication-sparing.

Omalizumab as alternative to chronic use of oral corticosteroids in severe asthma

Systemic/oral corticosteroids (OCS) have been used for decades in the management of acute asthma exacerbations and chronically in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. However, while OCS are effective at treating acute exacerbations, there is only empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of OCS at reducing the rate of exacerbations. Evidence, although scarce, is suggestive of high exacerbation rates in severe asthma patients even when receiving maintenance treatment with OCS. In addition, use of OCS is associated with undesirable effects. Despite all this, physicians have continued to use OCS for managing severe asthma and acute exacerbation due to the lack of availability of effective alternatives. Fortunately, in the last decade several biologics have been proven safe and effective for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. This has led to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommending the use of biologics, instead of maintenance OCS, in patients with severe asthma (GINA Step 5). These include one biologic targeting immunoglobulin E (IgE) (omalizumab), and different biologics targeting interleukin-5 (IL-5), the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R) or IL-4 receptor α-unit (IL-4R α), including mepolizumab (subcutaneous), reslizumab (intravenous), benralizumab (subcutaneous) and dupilumab (subcutaneous). Omalizumab for the treatment of severe allergic asthma reduces exacerbations, irrespective of blood eosinophil levels. Anti-IL-5/IL-5R biologics are indicated in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and repetitive exacerbations, irrespective of the presence or absence of allergy. Recently, an anti-IL4Rα biologic has been approved by the FDA for eosinophilic phenotype or oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma. Finally, physicians should consider using biologics as an alternative to chronic OCS therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in severe, persistent IgE-mediated asthma in pediatric and adult patients: a real-world observational study in Egyptian population

Objective: Real-world studies on the effectiveness of omalizumab in Egyptian population with asthma are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of omalizumab as an add-on treatment in pediatric and adult patients with severe, persistent allergic asthma in Egypt. Methods: The primary endpoint of this 16-week, prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-interventional study was the reduction in oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose. Secondary endpoints included reduction in exacerbation, improvements in quality of life and global assessment of omalizumab therapy. Results: Of the 59 patients, 53 completed the study. Add-on omalizumab significantly reduced the proportion of patients receiving OCS at Week 16 versus baseline (81.1% at baseline versus 52.8% at Week 16; p < 0.001). A 55% decrease in the total daily prednisolone-equivalent dose of OCS was observed at the end of the study compared to baseline (p < 0.001). No patients reported exacerbations or missed days from work or school after receiving omalizumab for 16 weeks compared to baseline (both p < 0.001). A statistically significant decrease was observed in asthma control questionnaire-5 scores (p < 0.001). Almost all physicians and patients rated omalizumab therapy as 'good,' 'very good' or 'excellent' in tolerability and effectiveness. No new safety signals were observed in the safety analysis of omalizumab as add-on treatment. Conclusions: Outcomes of this real-world study were consistent with previous effectiveness and safety studies of omalizumab. Omalizumab was effective and well tolerated for the management of severe, persistent IgE-mediated asthma in pediatric and adult patients in Egypt.

Systematic literature review of the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden associated with asthma uncontrolled by GINA Steps 4 or 5 treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to characterize the epidemiologic, clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of patients with asthma uncontrolled by GINA Steps 4 or 5 treatment (severe, uncontrolled asthma [SUA]).

METHODS

A systematic literature review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Relevant publications were searched for in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2004 to September 2016 and in a conference proceedings database from January 2012 to October 2016. Studies were screened using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Study Design, and Time (PICOS-T) framework. Studies of SUA with observational (prospective and retrospective), randomized, or nonrandomized study designs; adult patient populations; sample sizes ≥20 patients; epidemiologic or clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), or economic outcomes were included. For our analysis, SUA was defined as inadequate control of asthma, despite the use of medium- to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and at least one additional treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 195 articles reporting unique study populations were included. Prevalence of SUA was as great as 87.4% for patients with severe asthma, although values varied depending on the criteria used to define asthma control. Compared with patients with severe asthma who were controlled, patients with SUA experienced more symptoms, night-time awakenings, rescue medication use, and worse PROs. SUA-associated costs were 3-times greater than costs for patients with severe, controlled disease.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of approved asthma treatments, this literature analysis confirms that SUA poses a substantial epidemiologic, clinical, humanistic, and economic burden. Published data are limited for certain aspects of SUA, highlighting a need for further research.

Tolerability of Omalizumab in Asthma as a Major Compliance Factor: 10-Year Follow Up

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data related to real life, long-term safety, tolerability and compliance of omalizumab treatment in asthma patients beyond 6 years.

AIM

Study aimed to assess safety, tolerability, compliance and all reasons for treatment discontinuation during 10 years on omalizumab.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study of uncontrolled asthma patients receiving omalizumab for the last 10 years. All data were collected from patients' files (demographics, adverse events, comorbidities, compliance index, reasons for discontinuation of omalizumab). Reactions to omalizumab were classified as local and systemic, and their severity as mild, moderate or severe. Reactions were either immediate (minutes to hours after drug administration) or delayed (after days). Compliance to omalizumab, defined as Compliance index (CI), was calculated by comparing milligrams of given to milligrams of prescribed dose/ per year.

RESULTS

Out of 35 patients receiving omalizumab, 15 drop out at different time points mostly due to treatment efficacy or appearance of new comorbidities. Patients who continue for the next ten years had mild to moderate adverse events related to omalizumab. There was no increased risk of severe adverse events during 10 years on omalizumab. Patient's treatment tolerability, despite mild to moderate adverse events, is in favour of compliance.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with omalizumab mildly decreased over 10 years but was not affected by severe adverse events of treatment or new comorbidities. Although, omalizumab is safe medicine appearance of new comorbidities has to be closely followed up.

Long-term "real-life" safety of omalizumab in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma: A nine-year study

BACKGROUND

Randomized Controlled Trials showed that omalizumab exhibited a good safety and tolerability profile in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. However, safety data of long-term treatment with omalizumab are scarce. Our aim was to assess the safety of omalizumab in patients under long-term treatment in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Difficult-to-control asthmatic patients treated with omalizumab up to 9 years were retrospectively evaluated. Mild to severe adverse events any and reasons for discontinuation were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients (26.4% males, mean age 49.9 ± 14.9 years) were included: mean treatment length, 3.8 ± 2.6 years; mean individual monthly dose, 514.5 ± 345.7 mg (range, 150-1200 mg). A total of 10,472 single injections were given cumulatively to the 91 patients (115 single injections per patients, on average, over a treatment period up to 9 years). Fifty-nine patients (64.8%) were treated for a period of time from 3 to 9 years, 14 of whom from 6 to 9 years. A high proportion of patients who discontinued treatment dropped out within the first year (18, 39.1%), mainly for reasons unrelated to treatment. Six patients (6.6%) discontinued omalizumab for treatment-related adverse events: arthralgia/myalgia (3 patients); urticaria, angioedema (1 patients); metrorrhagia (1 patient); relapsing herpes labialis (1 patient). Four other patients complained of mild adverse events (rhinitis/conjunctivitis, injection site reaction, fatigue, thrombosis) but continued the treatment. Anaphylaxis was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with omalizumab appears remarkably safe and well tolerated in real-life setting. Prolonged omalizumab treatment for many consecutive years did not increase the risk of side effects, particularly anaphylaxis.

"Real-life" Effectiveness Studies of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After the approval of omalizumab for severe allergic asthma, a total of 25 studies have evaluated the effectiveness of omalizumab under "real-life" conditions of heterogeneity in patients, clinicians, sites, and treatment patterns.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of omalizumab focusing on treatment response, lung function, quality of life, symptom control, corticosteroid use, and exacerbations and hospitalizations at 4-6, 12, and 24 months.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for real-life studies on omalizumab in severe asthma published up to 2015. Three effect size types were extracted: single-point proportions; mean ± SD of change relative to baseline as raw numbers and standardized as Cohen's d; and changes in proportions of patients as relative risk. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to account for within- and between-study heterogeneity. Studies were weighted by the DerSimonian and Laird method.

RESULTS

Per data available at the 3 time points, omalizumab therapy was consistently associated with large proportions of patients classified as "good" to "excellent" treatment responders (Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness scale); improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, quality of life (Asthma-related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire scale), and asthma symptom control (Asthma Control Test scale); reductions in oral and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use; and reductions in exacerbations and hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of noncontrolled studies documents the real-life pharmacotherapeutic effectiveness of omalizumab, as add-on treatment to ICS ± long-acting β₂-agonists agents, in improving outcomes in patients with severe allergic asthma under conditions of heterogeneity in patients, clinicians, sites, and treatment patterns. The results mirror, complement, and extend the efficacy data from randomized controlled trials.

Targeting patients with asthma for omalizumab therapy: choosing the right patient to get the best value for money

The asthma syndrome has many manifestations, termed phenotypes, that arise by specific cellular and molecular mechanisms, termed endotypes. Understanding an individual's asthma phenotype helps clinicians make rational therapeutic decisions while the understanding of endotypes has led to the development of specific precision medications. Allergic asthma is an example of an asthma phenotype and omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes serum immunoglobulin (Ig)E, is a specific targeted treatment which was developed as a result of an understanding of the endotype of allergic asthma. Omalizumab has been widely used in clinical practice in Europe for over a decade as an add-on therapy to treat patients who have severe refractory allergic asthma. Over this period, many centres have reported their experience with omalizumab as an add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma. These 'real world' clinical effectiveness studies have confirmed the benefits, cost-effectiveness and clinical utility of this medication. Combining the outcomes of both sources of research has yielded important insights that may benefit patients with severe asthma, clinicians who treat them, as well as the funding agencies that reimburse the cost of this medication. The purpose of this review is to describe how to identify and evaluate a patient with asthma for whom treatment with omalizumab may be of clinical and cost-effective benefit. The assessment and investigations used to confirm allergic asthma, the objective assessment of adherence to asthma therapy and the expected benefits of add-on omalizumab treatment are described.

'Real-life' effectiveness studies of omalizumab in adult patients with severe allergic asthma: systematic review

We reviewed 24 'real-life' effectiveness studies of omalizumab in the treatment of severe allergic asthma that included 4117 unique patients from 32 countries with significant heterogeneity in patients, clinicians and settings. The evidence underscores the short- and long-term benefit of anti-IgE therapy in terms of the following: improving lung function; achieving asthma control and reducing symptomatology, severe exacerbations and associated work/school days lost; reducing healthcare resource utilizations, in particular hospitalizations, hospital lengths of stay and accident specialist or emergency department visits; reducing or discontinuing other asthma medications; and improving quality of life - thus confirming, complementing and extending evidence from randomized trials. Thus, omalizumab therapy is associated with signal improvements across the full objective and subjective burden of illness chain of severe allergic asthma. Benefits of omalizumab may extend up to 2-4 years, and the majority of omalizumab-treated patients may benefit for many years. Omalizumab has positive short- and long-term safety profiles similar to what is known from randomized clinical trials. Initiated patients should be monitored for treatment response at 16 weeks. Those showing positive response at that time are highly likely to show sustained treatment response and benefit in terms of clinical, quality of life and health resource utilization outcomes.

Effectiveness of the Polish program for the treatment of severe allergic asthma with omalizumab: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

A national program for the treatment of severe allergic (IgE-dependent) asthma with omalizumab (OMA) was implemented in Poland in 2013. This observational study evaluated the effectiveness of the Polish OMA program and monitored asthma control after treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

In the first year of the program, 53 patients (23 new/30 continuing treatment) received OMA in the Barlicki Hospital, Poland. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 16 weeks of OMA treatment by spirometry, mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and oral corticosteroids (OCS), number of asthma exacerbations, the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). OMA treatment responses were determined using the global effectiveness of treatment evaluation scale. Fourteen patients ceased OMA treatment following ≥36 months of therapy and entered follow up.

RESULTS

All patients treated with OMA de novo for at least 16 weeks had a decrease in asthma exacerbations and showed a good (15/16, 94 %) or an excellent (1/16, 6 %) response to treatment. We observed a reduction in OCS dose (≥5 mg/day) in 14/16 (88 %) patients. ACQ and AQLQ scores improved by ≥0.5 points in 15/16 (94 %) and 14/16 (88 %) patients, respectively. After OMA cessation, 11/14 (79 %) patients showed worsening of asthma control and severe exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the OMA program show significant benefits, including reduced use of OCS, improved asthma control and quality of life. After OMA discontinuation, frequent severe exacerbations were observed primarily in patients whose asthma was previously uncontrolled by high OCS doses.

Efficacy of omalizumab (Xolair®) in patients with moderate to severe predominately chronic oral steroid dependent asthma in Taiwan: a retrospective, population-based database cohort study

Background

Omalizumab (Xolair®), a recombinant monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials conducted in patients with moderate to severe persistent allergic asthma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy, discontinuation and medical resource utilization of omalizumab in the real-life setting in Taiwan.

Methods

This study was a retrospective, population-based database cohort study using the Taiwan NHIRD from 2007 to 2011 assessing the efficacy of omalizumab therapy over 4 months on changes in asthma medication, asthma control, frequency of exacerbations and hospitalization rates at baseline and after omalizumab discontinuation.

Results

There was a reduction in asthma medication post omalizumab therapy and severe exacerbations and hospitalizations from baseline (31.2 %, n = 282) to the end of follow-up (11.8 %, n = 144, p < 0.001). Nearly all the patients received chronic oral corticosteroids at baseline (92.4 %). The number of ER visits decreased from 1.13 ± 2.04 to 0.29 ± 0.83, and the mean number of admissions decreased from 5.93 ± 16.16 to 2.75 ± 12.02 from baseline to the end of follow-up (p < 0.001). After discontinuation of omalizumab, the cost of ER medical expenses decreased from New Taiwan dollars (NTD) 3934 at 2 months to NTD 2860 at 12 months.

Conclusions

Patients who received omalizumab therapy for over 4 months were more likely to reduce the use of other asthma medications and less likely to experience an asthma exacerbation, ER visits, and hospitalization, even after the discontinuation of omalizumab. These data suggest that omalizumab has efficacy in improving health outcomes in patients with moderate to severe predominately chronic oral steroid dependent asthma in the real-life setting in Taiwan.

The real-life clinical effects of 52 weeks of omalizumab therapy for severe persistent allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab was introduced in Malta in 2011. To date, no local data have been published.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain baseline characteristics of our local cohort, determine effectiveness of omalizumab at 52 weeks, compare clinical outcomes 52 weeks pre- and postomalizumab therapy and to assess its safety and tolerability.

SETTING

The Mater Dei Hospital in Malta.

METHOD

All consented adult patients who were eligible to start treatment with omalizumab for asthma were enrolled in this open, prospective observational real-life study. A questionnaire was completed and an Asthma Control Test and spirometry performed. Patients were reviewed on a regular basis. Any undesirable symptoms were recorded. Treatment effectiveness was evaluated at 16 and 52 weeks, during which a decision was taken whether patients were responders. Outcomes were compared 52 weeks pre- and post- treatment initiation. Main outcome measure To determine effectiveness of treatment following 1 year of omalizumab by assessing its impact on the rate of asthma-related exacerbations and health care utilization including hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 22 patients, all non-smokers (mean age 52.7 ± 11, 64 % males). The mean baseline IgE level was 448.6 ± 444 IU/ml. At week 12, treatment was stopped in one patient due to arthralgias. The drug was stopped in two patients at week 16 due to treatment ineffectiveness. At week 20, treatment was stopped in another patient in view of arthralgias. A significant reduction in the number of asthma exacerbations (p = .03) and number of systemic steroid courses required (p = .03) was identified at 52 weeks. There was a significant improvement in the ACT score (p < .001) after 52 weeks but no significant improvement in FEV1. There was a non-significant decline in the number of hospitalizations (p = .6), asthma-related healthcare visits (p = .2) and days off work (p = .09). Adverse events occurred in 10 % of patients. Costs related to asthma hospital-stay and medicines administered during hospitalisations were decreased by half following 1 year on omalizumab.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab treatment resulted in an improved asthma control, with a significant reduction in asthma exacerbations and systemic steroid courses required and improvement on ACT score. Adverse events were infrequent and the drug was well tolerated.

Reduction in oral corticosteroid use in patients receiving omalizumab for allergic asthma in the real-world setting

Background

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are commonly administered in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma. Despite their efficacy, they are associated with a wide variety of adverse events. The eXpeRience registry was set up to investigate real-world outcomes among patients receiving omalizumab for the treatment of uncontrolled allergic asthma. Here, we present the effect of omalizumab treatment on OCS use.

Methods

eXpeRience was a 2-year, multinational, non-interventional, observational registry of patients receiving omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma. OCS use (proportion of patients on maintenance OCS, mean total daily OCS dose and change in status of OCS therapy) was assessed at baseline, 16 weeks, and 8, 12, 18, and 24 months after the initiation of omalizumab. Response to omalizumab was assessed using the physician’s Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) at approximately Week 16. Safety data were also recorded.

Results

A total of 943 patients (mean age, 45 years; female, 64.9%) were enrolled in the registry, 263 of whom were receiving maintenance OCS at baseline. The proportion of patients taking maintenance OCS was markedly lower at Months 12 (16.1%) and 24 (14.2%) than at baseline (28.6%; intent-to-treat population). GETE status was determined in 915 patients receiving omalizumab: 64.2% were responders (excellent or good response), 30.7% were non-responders (moderate, poor or worsening response); 5.1% had no assessment. The frequency of serious adverse events was comparable to that seen in controlled trials of omalizumab.

Conclusions

Omalizumab use is associated with an OCS-sparing effect in patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma in the real-world setting.

Assessment of long-term omalizumab treatment in patients with severe allergic asthma long-term omalizumab treatment in severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Several clinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma but the treatment period has always been relatively short (4-12 months). In the literature, there are a few data about the long-term omalizumab therapy. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical and functional effectiveness of omalizumab treatment in severe allergic asthmatic patients,

METHODS

Medical records describing the patients' status before the start of treatment, and also having been registered at the end of 4th, 12th, and 36th months from the commencement of treatment, and at the last visit where the patient was evaluated were used for omalizumab effectiveness assessments. Twenty-six patients (female/male: 21/5) with severe allergic asthma, uncontrolled despite GINA 2006 Step 4 therapy, were included in the study. Effectiveness outcomes included spirometry measurements, level of asthma control measured by asthma control test (ACT), systemic glucocorticosteroid (sGCS) use, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalizations for severe exacerbations. In addition, the quality of life was assessed using the quality of life questionnaire AQLQ(S) before, 4, and 36 months after treatment,

RESULTS

The mean age was 47.6 ± 13.9 and duration of allergic asthma was 22.7 ± 10.1 years. Serum total IgE levels were 322.0 ± 178.1 IU/mL. Mean duration of omalizumab treatment was 40.81 ± 8.2 months. FEV1 improved significantly at all control points versus baseline (p < .05). The level of asthma control as evaluated by ACT improved significantly after treatment (p < .05). We determined significantly reduced numbers of exacerbation, emergency visits, hospitalizations, sGCS, and SABA use by the end of 36 months (p < .05). The proportion of patients with improvements larger than 1.5 points in AQLQ(S) total score was 80.7% at the 4th month and 96.1% at the 36th month of treatment,

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that long-term therapy with omalizumab for up to 3 years was well tolerated with significant improvement both in symptoms and lung functions. Accordingly, long-term omalizumab treatment may be recommended for responders.

Omalizumab: clinical use for the management of asthma

Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds circulating IgE antibody, is a treatment option for patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma whose asthma is poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled long-acting β₂ agonist bronchodilators. This review considers the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and place in management of omalizumab in asthma and focuses particularly on key articles published over the last three years. Omalizumab reduces IgE mediated airway inflammation and its effect on airway remodeling is under investigation. Recent long-term clinical trials confirm the benefits of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations and symptoms in adults and in children with moderate to severe allergic asthma. No clinical or immunological factor consistently predicts a good therapeutic response to omalizumab in allergic asthma. In responders, the duration of treatment is unclear. The main adverse effect of omalizumab is anaphylaxis, although this occurs infrequently. Preliminary data from a five-year safety study has raised concerns about increased cardiovascular events and a final report is awaited. Clinical trials are in progress to determine whether omalizumab has efficacy in the treatment of non-allergic asthma.