Switch from Omalizumab to Benralizumab in Allergic Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Real-Life Experience from Southern Italy

Choosing the right biologic treatment for individual patients with severe asthma - lessons learnt from Picasso

Severe asthma represents a true challenge for clinicians from two basic perspectives, i.e.: a rational assessment of the underlying endo/phenotype and the subsequent selection of the best fitted (personalized) and effective treatment. Even though asthma is a heterogeneous disease, in the majority of therapy-compliant patients, it is possible to achieve (almost) complete disease control or even remission through conventional and quite uniform step-based pharmacotherapy, even without phenotyping. However, the absence of deeper assessment of individual patients revealed its handicap to its fullest extent during the first years of the new millennium upon the launch of biological therapeutics for patients with the most severe forms of asthma. The introduction of differentially targeted biologics into clinical practice became a challenge in terms of understanding and recognizing the etiopathogenetic heterogeneity of the asthmatic inflammation, pheno/endotyping, and, consequently, to choose the right biologic for the right patient. The answers to the following three questions should lead to correct identification of the dominant pheno/endotype: Is it really (severe) asthma? Is it eosinophilic asthma? If eosinophilic, is it (predominantly) allergen-driven? The identification of the best achievable and relevant alliance between endotypes and phenotypes ("euphenotypes") should be based not only on the assessment of the actual clinical characteristics and laboratory biomarkers, but more importantly, on the evaluation of their development and changes over time. In the current paper, we present a pragmatic three-step approach to severe asthma diagnosis and management.

Type 2 severe asthma: pathophysiology and treatment with biologics

INTRODUCTION

The hallmark of most patients with severe asthma is type 2 inflammation, driven by innate and adaptive immune responses leading to either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic infiltration of airways. The cellular and molecular pathways underlying severe type 2 asthma can be successfully targeted by specific monoclonal antibodies.

AREAS COVERED

This review article provides a concise overview of the pathophysiology of type 2 asthma, followed by an updated appraisal of the mechanisms of action and therapeutic efficacy of currently available biologic treatments used for management of severe type 2 asthma. Therefore, all reported information arises from a wide literature search performed on PubMed.

EXPERT OPINION

The main result of the recent advances in the field of anti-asthma biologic therapies is the implementation of a personalized medicine approach, aimed to achieve clinical remission of severe asthma. Today this accomplishment is made possible by the right choice of the most beneficial biologic drug for the pathologic traits characterizing each patient, including type 2 severe asthma and its comorbidities.

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management of Severe Asthma in low and middle income countries (LMIC) with focus on India

OBJECTIVE

In this document, 9 Indian experts have evaluated the factors specific to LMICs when it came to Severe Asthma (SA) diagnosis, evaluation, biologic selection, non-biologic treatment options, and follow-up.

DATA SOURCES

A search was performed using 50 keywords, focusing on the Indian/LMICs perspective, in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The key areas of the search were focused on diagnosis, phenoendotyping, non-biological therapies, selecting a biologic, assessment of treatment response, and management of exacerbation.

STUDY SELECTIONS

The initial search revealed 1826 articles, from these case reports, observational studies, cohort studies, non-English language papers, etc., were excluded and we short-listed 20 articles for each area. Five relevant articles were selected by the experts for review.

RESULTS

In LMICs, SA patients may be referred to the specialist for evaluation a little late for Phenoendotyping of SA. While biologic therapy is now a standard of care, pulmonologists in LMICs may not have access to all the investigations to phenoendotype SA patients like fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), skin prick test (SPT), etc., but phenotyping of SA patients can also be done with simple blood investigations, eosinophil count and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). Choosing a biologic in the overlapping phenotype of SA and ACO patients is also a challenge in the LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the limitations of LMIC, it is important to select the right patient and explain the potential benefits of biological therapy. Non-biologic add-on therapies can be attempted in a resource-limited setting where biological therapy is not available/feasible for patients.

Sustained Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Naïve and Biologics-Experienced Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Patients: Results from the ANANKE Study

Purpose

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients often present overlapping inflammatory features rendering them eligible for multiple biologic therapies; switching biologic treatment is a strategy adopted to optimize asthma control when patients show partial or no response to previous biologics.

Patients and Methods

ANANKE is a retrospective, multicenter Italian study (NCT04272463). Here, we outline the characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes in naïve-to-biologics and biologics-experienced patients treated with benralizumab for up to 96 weeks. Bio-experienced patients were split into omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets according to the type of biologic previously used.

Results

A total of 124 (76.5%) naïve and 38 (23.5%) bio-experienced patients were evaluated at index date; 13 patients (34.2%) switched from mepolizumab, 21 patients (55.3%) switched from omalizumab, and four patients (10.5%) received both biologics. The mepolizumab subset was characterized by the longest SEA duration (median of 4.6 years), the highest prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) (76.5%), and the greatest oral corticosteroid (OCS) daily dosage (median of 25 mg prednisone equivalent). The omalizumab group showed the highest severe annual exacerbation rate (AER) (1.70). At 96 weeks, treatment with benralizumab reduced any and severe AER by more than 87% and 94%, respectively, across all groups. Lung function was overall preserved, with major improvements observed in the mepolizumab group, which also revealed a 100% drop of the median OCS dose. Asthma Control Test (ACT) score improved in the naïve group while its increment was more variable in bio-experienced patients; among these, a marked difference was noticed between omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets (median ACT score of 23.5 and 18, respectively).

Conclusion

Benralizumab promotes durable and profound clinical benefits in naïve and bio-experienced groups, indicating that a nearly complete depletion of eosinophils is highly beneficial in the control of SEA, independently of previous biologic use.

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.

Omalizumab Transitions in Severe Asthma: Factors Influencing Switching Decisions and Timing for Optimal Response

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of switching from omalizumab to another biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma and evaluate factors that influenced the decision to switch and determined the optimal time for a good biologic response.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of severe asthma patients was conducted at Al-Rashed Allergy Center, a tertiary center in Kuwait. After meeting the eligibility criteria, patients were divided into two comparative groups: those continuing with omalizumab and those who started with omalizumab but switched to another biologic.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients with severe asthma were recruited, and only 33 had access to multiple biological treatments. Approximately 22.4% switched from omalizumab. Male patients with a history of ischemic heart disease, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyps were more likely to switch if they had higher levels of eosinophils in the sputum. This study showed that every 1% increase in sputum eosinophils doubled the likelihood of a switch. Patients with access to alternative biological options had a much shorter mean duration of omalizumab therapy before switching compared to those with only affordable omalizumab: 4.9 ± 1.5 years versus 8.9 ± 1.3 years (p < 0.001). The optimal time to predict the likelihood of a good response was less than 5.5 years, with an area under the curve of 0.91 and p = 0.003. This cutoff point provided a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 89% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An early transition from omalizumab, specifically within the first 5 years of treatment, in patients with severe asthma and higher sputum eosinophils may enhance the likelihood of a good response if other biological therapies were available.

Effectiveness and safety of anti-IL-5/Rα biologics in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: a two-year multicenter observational study

Background

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a rare vasculitis characterized by asthma, systemic manifestations, and blood and tissue eosinophilia.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) and benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα) in EGPA for 24 months.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter observational study, including patients with EGPA treated with anti-IL-5/Rα biologics in 9 Italian specialized facilities. Systemic disease activity, remission and relapse rate were evaluated from 3 to 24 months after treatment initiation. Respiratory outcomes, hematological parameters, corticosteroid (OCS) and immunosuppressants consumption were also assessed.

Results

49 patients with relapsing-refractory EGPA were included [26 (53.1%) benralizumab 30mg, 20 (40.8%) mepolizumab 100mg, 3 (6.1%) mepolizumab 300mg]. Overall, 38.8% and 57.1% achieved remission after 12 and 24 months, respectively (69.2% benralizumab and 43.5% mepolizumab). Lower OCS intake and higher blood eosinophil count at baseline were associated with remission at 24 months. Both biologics exerted beneficial effects on severe asthma outcomes. Indeed, 61.2% (61.5% benralizumab and 60.8% mepolizumab) remained exacerbation-free during treatment. Lung function parameters showed improvements in the overall cohort (all p<0.05), but began to decline from month 12, especially with mepolizumab. Marked reduction in blood eosinophils was registered with mepolizumab (p<0.0001), while benralizumab depleted both eosinophils (p<0.0001) and basophils (p<0.0001). In general, 69.6% (76% benralizumab and 61.9% mepolizumab) of OCS-dependent patients lowered their daily dose by 75%, while 28.3% discontinued these drugs. Immunosuppressants were suspended in 88.2% of cases. Adverse events were reported in 8.2% of patients.

Conclusions

These real-world data suggest that anti-IL-5/Rα biologics are effective and safe in the long-term as add-on treatments for patients with EGPA.

Benralizumab Effectiveness in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma with Co-Presence of Bronchiectasis: A Real-World Multicentre Observational Study

Introduction: The co-presence of bronchiectasis (BE) in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) is common. Data about the effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with SEA and BE (SEA + BE) are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of benralizumab and remission rates in patients with SEA compared to SEA + BE, also according to BE severity. Methods: We conducted a multicentre observational study, including patients with SEA who underwent chest high-resolution computed tomography at baseline. The Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI) was used to assess BE severity. Clinical and functional characteristics were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Results: We included 74 patients with SEA treated with benralizumab, of which 35 (47.2%) showed the co-presence of bronchiectasis (SEA + BE) with a median BSI of 9 (7-11). Overall, benralizumab significantly improved the annual exacerbation rate (p < 0.0001), oral corticosteroids (OCS) consumption (p < 0.0001) and lung function (p < 0.01). After 12 months, significant differences were found between SEA and SEA + BE cohorts in the number of exacerbation-free patients [64.1% vs. 20%, OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.05-0.40), p < 0.0001], the proportion of OCS withdrawal [-92.6% vs. -48.6, p = 0.0003], and the daily dose of OCS [-5 mg (0 to -12.5) vs. -12.5 mg (-7.5 to -20), p = 0.0112]. Remission (zero exacerbations + zero OCS) was achieved more frequently in the SEA cohort [66.7% vs. 14.3%, OR 0.08 (95% CI 0.03-0.27), p < 0.0001]. Changes in FEV₁% and FEF_25-75% were inversely correlated with BSI (r = -0.36, p = 0.0448 and r = -0.41, p = 0.0191, respectively). Conclusions: These data suggest that benralizumab exerts beneficial effects in SEA with or without BE, although the former achieved less OCS sparing and fewer respiratory-function improvements.

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.

Pathobiology of Type 2 Inflammation in Asthma and Nasal Polyposis

Asthma and nasal polyposis often coexist and are frequently intertwined by tight pathogenic links, mainly consisting of the cellular and molecular pathways underpinning type 2 airway inflammation. The latter is characterized by a structural and functional impairment of the epithelial barrier, associated with the eosinophilic infiltration of both the lower and upper airways, which can be driven by either allergic or non-allergic mechanisms. Type 2 inflammatory changes are predominantly due to the biological actions exerted by interleukins 4 (IL-4), 13 (IL-13), and 5 (IL-5), produced by T helper 2 (Th2) lymphocytes and group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2). In addition to the above cytokines, other proinflammatory mediators involved in the pathobiology of asthma and nasal polyposis include prostaglandin D₂ and cysteinyl leukotrienes. Within this context of 'united airway diseases', nasal polyposis encompasses several nosological entities such as chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). Because of the common pathogenic origins of asthma and nasal polyposis, it is not surprising that the more severe forms of both these disorders can be successfully treated by the same biologic drugs, targeting many molecular components (IgE, IL-5 and its receptor, IL-4/IL-13 receptors) of the type 2 inflammatory trait.

Biological therapy for severe asthma - Indian perspectives and challenges

Asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease. Severe asthma makes up only a minority of asthma patients encountered in clinical settings but accounts for substantial healthcare utilisation in terms of manpower as well as economic allocation. The availability of monoclonal antibodies has a major impact on severe asthmatics and has provided excellent clinical results in properly selected patients. The discovery of new molecules might present uncertainties to clinicians as to the best agent to institute in an individual patient. The practice scenario in India is unique when it comes to the commercial availability of monoclonal antibodies, patient attitudes, and allocation of the healthcare budget. The present review dissects and summarises the available monoclonal antibodies for asthma treatment in India, the perspectives of Indian patients on biological therapy, and the challenges encountered by patients and physicians in this regard. We provide practical suggestions for utilising monoclonal antibodies and deciding on the optimal agent for a given patient.

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.

Switching from one biologic to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: An ANANKE study post hoc analysis

Background

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease driven by eosinophilic inflammation in the majority of cases. Despite biologic therapy patients may still be sub-optimally controlled, and the choice of the best biologic is a matter of debate. Indeed, switching between biologics is common, but no official guidelines are available and real-world data are limited.

Materials and methods

In this post hoc analysis of the Italian, multi-center, observational, retrospective study, ANANKE. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab were divided in two groups based on history of previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced [suboptimal response] vs naïve). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment. Change over time in blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use following benralizumab initiation were collected in the two groups.

Results

A total of 147 biologic-naïve and 58 biologic-experienced (34 omalizumab, 19 mepolizumab, and 5 omalizumab-mepolizumab) patients were enrolled. Biologic-experienced patients were more likely to be atopic and have a higher AER despite more frequent OCS use. Similar reductions in AER (&gt;90% in both groups), OCS use (≥49% reduction in dosage and ≥41% able to eliminate OCS), ACT improvement (≥7 points gained in 48 weeks) and lung function (≥300 mL of FEV1 improvement in 48 weeks) were observed after benralizumab introduction within the two groups. There were no registered discontinuations of benralizumab for safety reasons.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, patients who were switched to benralizumab because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to be atopic and more often treated with omalizumab. Benralizumab is effective in both naïve patients and those previously treated with a biologic.

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.

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.

Local and Systemic Production of Pro-Inflammatory Eicosanoids Is Inversely Related to Sensitization to Aeroallergens in Patients with Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease

Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is characterized by overproduction of the pro-inflammatory eicosanoids. Although immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitization to aeroallergens is common among AERD patients, it does not belong to the defining disease characteristics. In this study of 133 AERD patients, we sought to find a relationship between sensitization to aeroallergens and local (leukotriene E4, prostaglandin E2 and prostaglandin D2) and/or systemic (leukotriene E4) production of arachidonic acid metabolites. Interestingly, a negative association between pro-inflammatory eicosanoid levels in induced sputum supernatant or urine and sensitization to aeroallergens was observed. This inverse relationship might suggest the presence of a protective effect of atopic sensitization to aeroallergens against stronger local airway inflammation and higher systemic AERD-related inflammatory activity.