Omalizumab Treatment for Atopic Severe Persistant Asthma: A Single-Center, Long-Term, Real-Life Experience with 38 Patients

Can omalizumab be an alternative treatment for non-atopic severe asthma? A real-life experience with omalizumab

Introduction

Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, has largely demonstrated its efficacy in severe allergic asthma. There are limited data about the effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with non-atopic severe persistent asthma. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of omalizumab in patients with non-atopic severe asthma and compare the data obtained with those in patients with allergic severe asthma.

Materials and Methods

This study was an observational, retrospective, tertiary single-center study that assessed and compared the clinical outcome of adult patients with severe asthma (165 atopic and 41 non-atopic) who have been on omalizumab for one year or longer between January 2008 and January 2020. Effectiveness was assessed by considering symptom scores (GINA symptom control score), daily systemic corticosteroids (SCS) dosage, blood eosinophil counts, pulmonary function, and number of severe exacerbations and hospitalizations within the last one year.

Result

Omalizumab exhibited significant improvement in the clinical status of non-atopic asthma patients as measured by GINA symptom score [decreased from 3.77 ± 0.63 to 1.36 ± 1.27 (p<0.001)], the number of emergency room visits for asthma [decreased from 11.25 ± 14.69 to 0.25 ± 0.55 (p<0.001)], and the number of hospitalizations [decreased from 1.17 ± 2.87 to 0.14 ± 0.36 (p= 0.036)]. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in allergic asthma patients. FEV1 improved significantly from 2.08 ± 0.86 to 2.14 ± 0.84 (p= 0.041) and oral corticosteroid doses decreased significantly from 1.67 ± 7.49 to 0.46 ± 2.74 (p= 0.015) in the only atopic group.

Conclusions

Omalizumab, which is a proven and effective treatment option for allergic asthma, may also be an efficacious alternative option in non-atopic severe asthma.

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 Role of IgE in Upper and Lower Airway Disease: More Than Just Allergy!

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a well-known key factor in allergic airway disease; however, its central role in non-allergic airway inflammation is often underestimated. In some airway diseases, IgE is produced as a result of allergic sensitization. However, in others, IgE production occurs despite the lack of a specific allergen. Although multiple pathways contribute to the production of IgE in airway disease, it is its activity in mediating the inflammatory response that is associated with disease. Therefore, an understanding of IgE as the unifying component of upper and lower airway diseases has important implications for both diagnosis and treatment. Understanding the role of IgE in each upper and lower airway disease highlights its potential utility as a diagnostic marker and therapeutic target. Further classification of these diseases by whether they are IgE mediated or non–IgE mediated, rather than by the existence of an underlying allergic component, accounts for both systemic and localized IgE activity. Improvements in diagnostic methodologies and standardization of clinical practices with this classification in mind can help identify patients with IgE-mediated diseases. In doing so, this group of patients can receive optimal care through targeted anti-IgE therapeutics, which have already demonstrated efficacy across numerous IgE-mediated upper and lower airway diseases.

Surgical outcomes in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease without aspirin desensitization

BACKGROUND

Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) represents a severe endotype of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Although aspirin desensitization (AD) has emerged as an effective therapeutic option, the natural history of AERD without AD remains unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of AERD patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) without AD between 2010 and 2019. The primary outcomes were revision surgery rate and time to revision surgery. Secondary outcomes included changes in 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores and Lund-Kennedy endoscopy scores (LKES). A subgroup analysis was performed for patients on monoclonal antibody therapy (MAT).

RESULTS

Of 141 patients, 37 (26.2%) underwent revision ESS with a median time to revision of 3.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 2.2-4.9) years. The probability of remaining free of revision surgery at 1, 3, and 5 years was: 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.7-100.0%), 78.8% (95% CI, 70.2-88.4%), and 44.8% (95% CI, 32.4-62.1%), respectively. SNOT-22 scores decreased by 34 (IQR, 18-52) points at 6 months and 27 (IQR, 20-46) points at 1 year postoperatively. In the revision cohort, the decrease in SNOT-22 score was not sustained at 1 year postoperatively. No difference was found in time to revision compared with those without MAT (p = 0.23).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of AERD patients benefit from ESS and medical therapy alone without AD. This study presents preliminary results on the impact of MAT on surgical outcomes as it is limited by the small sample size. Further research on the use of MAT in AERD is needed.