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

Long-Term Safety of Omalizumab in Children with Asthma and/or Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A 4-Year Prospective Study in Real Life

Background: Insufficient data are available on the long-term "real-life" safety profile of omalizumab in children. This study evaluated the long-term safety of omalizumab in a pediatric cohort with severe asthma or chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Methods: A monocentric, prospective study evaluated the long-term safety of omalizumab in patients aged 6-18 years. Each patient completed the standardized MedDRA questionnaire to identify adverse events (AEs). Results: In total, 23 patients, median age 15 (14-18) years, affected by severe asthma (60.8%) or CSU (39.2%), treated with omalizumab for 2 (1-4) years were enrolled. The most common AEs belong to the system organ class (SOC) of general disorders and administration-site conditions (37.17%). Skin and subcutaneous tissue problems represent the second most frequently reported AEs (24.35%). Central nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders were quite frequent (15.38% and 8.97%, respectively). Other adverse events were tachycardia (5.12%), vertigo and abdominal pain (2.60% and 3.86%, respectively), and dry eye (1.3%). Only one patient reported herpes virus infection during treatment (1.3%). No cases of anaphylaxis, hemopathies, uronephropathies, respiratory, psychiatric, hepatobiliary, or oncological pathologies were reported. Conclusions: Long-term "real-life" treatment with omalizumab in children appears well tolerated. Its safety and efficacy profile makes omalizumab an excellent alternative in severe asthma and CSU in children.

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.

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.

Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of biological agents

Introduction

Biological drugs open new possibilities to treat diseases for which drug therapy is limited, but they may be associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

Objective

To identify the ADRs associated with the use of biological drugs in Colombia.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of ADR reports from 2014 to 2019, contained in the database of Audifarma SA pharmacovigilance program. The ADRs, groups of associated drugs, and affected organs were classified.

Results

In total, 5,415 reports of ADRs associated with biological drugs were identified in 78 Colombian cities. A total of 76.1% of the cases corresponded to women. The majority were classified as type A (55.0%) and B (28.9%), and 16.7% were serious cases. The respiratory tract was the most affected organ system (16.8%), followed by the skin and appendages (15.6%). Antineoplastic and immunomodulatory drugs accounted for 70.6% of the reports, and the drugs related to the greatest number of ADRs were adalimumab (12.2%) and etanercept (11.6%).

Conclusions

The reporting of ADRs has increased in recent years and these reactions are mostly classified as tyoe A or B, categorized as serious in almost one-fifth of the reported cases and associated mainly with immunomodulators and antineoplastic agents. This type of study can support decision makers in ways that benefit patient safety and interaction with health systems.

Influence of prolonged treatment with omalizumab on the development of solid epithelial cancer in patients with atopic asthma and chronic idiopathic urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether prolonged treatment with omalizumab influences development or progression of solid epithelial cancer in patients with atopic asthma or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention and observational studies. Randomized controlled trials were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, comparative observational studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and non-comparative observational studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and grey literature for eligible studies to November 2017. All searches were updated in January 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES

Randomized, quasi-randomized, controlled clinical trials and observational studies were included if they involved patients ≥ 12 years with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma or chronic idiopathic urticaria treated with omalizumab for ≥ 40 weeks. Eligible comparators included standard of care, placebo, cromoglycate or no treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty seven unique studies were eligible for inclusion; however, only twelve (7.2%, n = 11 758) reported any outcome of interest, none of which involved patients with urticaria. 195 cancer events were reported. We found no statistically significant increase in the odds of study-emergent solid epithelial cancer in patients randomized to long-term treatment with omalizumab compared to standard of care (Peto OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.11, 3.74, I²  = 41%). Less than one per cent of participants of non-comparative observational studies (n = 2350) were diagnosed with a solid epithelial tumour (meta-proportion: 0.86% [95% CI: 0.24, 1.86%, I²  = 56%]). In the only comparative observational study reporting on cancer, the proportion of study-emergent solid epithelial tumour events was nearly identical in both study groups (omalizumab: 2.3%, standard of care: 2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether long-term treatment with omalizumab influences development or progression of solid epithelial cancer in these patient populations. PROSPERO registration # CRD 42018082211.