Comparative Impact of Asthma Biologics: A Nationwide US Claim-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic modifiers targeting type 2 (T2) airway inflammation are effective in reducing asthma exacerbation. However, real-world and comparative effectiveness studies remain limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare the real-world impact of anti-T2 asthma biologics.

METHODS

In this retrospective, new user cohort study, we used the MarketScan, a Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, to identify adult patients with asthma who began to receive an anti-T2 biologic agent (anti-IL-5s, dupilumab, or omalizumab). We examined the influence of the biologic class on asthma exacerbation by comparing the average number of asthma exacerbation 1 year before and after biologic initiation. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to compare the effectiveness of these asthma biologics on reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations within 18 months of the initial administration of biologics while controlling for demographic variables, comorbidities, and asthma severity.

RESULTS

We identified 5,538 asthma patients who were new to taking an anti-T2 biologic [mean age [±SD], 45.6 (12.78) years; 65.8% female). Asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation by 11% to 47%, particularly among patients with two or more asthma exacerbations in the year preceding biologic initiation (31% to 65% reduction). Biologics were especially effective in reducing asthma-related hospitalizations (44.6% to 60%). After adjusting for baseline demographics, asthma medication, and comorbidities, dupilumab was associated with a lower estimated mean number of asthma exacerbation per year and lower adjusted odds ratio for developing an asthma exacerbation relative to other biologics (50% to 80% less likely).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-T2 asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation in real-word settings. Evidence supports growing literature reporting that dupilumab might have a more favorable impact on asthma exacerbation relative to other asthma biologics.

Adverse events of anti-IL-5 drugs in patients with eosinophilic asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence-based assessments

BACKGROUND

We aimed to clarify comprehensively the safety profiles of anti-IL-5 drugs and pinpoint potential safety concerns that may arise in their post-marketing phase.

METHODS

Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022. Additionally, we investigated the FDA AE Reporting System for post-marketing adverse event (AE) reports related to anti-IL-5 drugs. The outcomes fulfilled the proportional reporting rate criteria and the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network.

RESULTS

We included 24 published studies in our analysis. The anti-IL-5 treatment group showed an incidence of AEs comparable to the placebo group, and it exhibited a significantly lower frequency of serious AEs. Common AEs were asthma, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and bronchitis. The post-marketing data included 28,478 case reports associated with the suspect drugs and 75 suspect safety observations affecting 16 system organ classes. New suspect observations included incomplete therapeutic product effect, URTIs, and pulmonary mass in reports related to mepolizumab. Reports associated with mepolizumab and benralizumab also indicated issues with incorrect technique in device usage and product issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual anti-IL-5 drugs' safety profiles largely matched their product inserts. We identified issues like improper device usage, product issue, and URTIs as potential concerns for mepolizumab and benralizumab. Additionally, all anti-IL-5 drugs showed signs of incomplete therapeutic effects.

Comparison of clinical remission criteria for severe asthma patients receiving biologic therapy

BACKGROUND

The concept of remission on biological treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic target for patients with severe asthma, composed of 1. no chronic use of systemic steroids, 2. no exacerbations, 3. minimal symptoms, and 4. optimized lung function, for a significant time. However, the criteria for remission are not clearly defined.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare different criteria for remission in subjects receiving biologicals for severe asthma.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of adult subjects who receive a stable regimen of a biological for severe asthma for at least 6-months. We compared the proportion of subjects who fulfilled different specific criteria in the four domains, as well as those who achieved different composite outcome measures of clinical remission.

RESULTS

Of 39 subjects, 28 were females (71.8%), mean age 60.4. Twelve were current or past smokers (30.8%). Twelve had prior different biological treatment (30.8%), and 3/39 had more than one previous treatment (7.7%). Current biological included mepolizumab 12/39 (30.8%), dupilumab 11/39 (28.2%), benralizumab 10/39 (25.6%), omalizumab 5/39 (12.8%), reslizumab 1/39 (2.6%). Different specific criteria were achieved in 39-80% of subjects, being highest for no chronic steroid use and lowest for symptoms control and lung function. Overall remission was obtained by 20-41%, depending on definition, with significant variability in agreement between different sets of remission criteria (Cohen's kappa 0.33-0.89).

CONCLUSION

Clinical remission is achievable in real-world severe asthmatics on biological therapies. The core criteria for remission should be better defined.

Exploring the risk of infection events in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies: A rapid systematic review and a meta-analysis

Introduction

Benralizumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab are novel monoclonal antibodies approved for asthma, targeting eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab is directed against IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), while mepolizumab and reslizumab are directed against IL-5. The three drugs cause a reduction in eosinophils, but benralizumab also causes a cytotoxic effect on eosinophils and basophils. Recently, it has been reported that suboptimal responders to benralizumab presented exacerbations associated with concomitant infections and sputum neutrophilia and the incidence of infections was greater in patients receiving benralizumab compared to mepolizumab and reslizumab. For this reason, we wanted to explore potential differences in terms of infectious adverse events between the three different anti-IL-5 antibodies.

Methods

We performed a rapid systematic review on PubMed up to April 28, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating benralizumab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab in patients with asthma. Included outcomes were the reporting of any respiratory tract infection and any emergency department (ED) or hospital admission for infection or asthma exacerbation. A Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis was performed with Cochrane RevMan 5.4 to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). A subgroup analysis for the different active treatments was performed.

Results

From 163 references we included 21 studies reporting the results of 23 different RCTs for a total population of 9156 patients. All studies compared anti-IL-5 antibodies against placebo. Anti-IL-5 treatment resulted in non-significant differences compared to placebo in the odds for nasopharyngitis (OR = 0.90; 95 % CI from 0.76 to 1.07), pharyngitis (OR = 1.45; 95 % CI from 0.92 to 2.28), upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (OR = 0.97; 95 % CI from 0.82 to 1.15), rhinitis (OR = 1.01; 95 % CI from 0.71 to 1.44), pneumonia (OR = 0.56; 95 % CI from 0.10 to 2.01), and influenza (OR = 0.84; 95 % CI from 0.65 to 1.09). We observed significant reductions in the reporting of sinusitis (OR = 0.75; 95 % CI from 0.53 to 1.06), bronchitis (OR = 0.71; 95 % CI from 0.59 to 0.86), and ED or hospital admission due to asthma exacerbation for overall anti-IL-5 antibodies compared to placebo (OR = 0.59; 95 % CI from 0.40 to 0.88). We were not able to discriminate whether exacerbations were associated with infections or to increased sputum eosinophilia. From the subgroup analysis, we observed differences in directions and magnitudes of the effect size in the reporting of some events. Benralizumab was associated with increased odds of pharyngitis (OR = 1.56; 95 % CI from 0.97 to 2.52) and a similar trend was observed for mepolizumab in the reporting of rhinitis (OR = 1.85; 95 % CI from 0.72 to 4.78), both non-statistically significant. In terms of effect size, benralizumab also showed higher odds for bronchitis and pneumonia in comparison to mepolizumab and reslizumab (OR = 0.76, OR = 0.69, and OR = 0.60 for bronchitis and OR = 0.80, OR = 0.20, and OR = 0.45, respectively, all non-significant).

Conclusion

Anti-IL-5 treatments might have different effects on the reporting of some infection events in patients with asthma. However, the evidence is limited by sample size and far than conclusive and suggest the need of future studies to evaluate the risk of infections in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 treatments.

Biologics and Hypereosinophilic Syndromes: Knowledge Gaps and Controversies

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are a heterogeneous group of disorders defined by blood and/or tissue hypereosinophilia and clinical manifestations attributable to the eosinophilia. Although various clinical subtypes of HES have been described, the general approach to therapy in all subtypes has focused on the reduction of blood and tissue eosinophilia to improve symptoms and halt disease progression. Until recently, this typically involved the use of corticosteroids and/or other immunosuppressive or cytotoxic drugs with significant toxicity. Whereas imatinib, the first targeted therapy approved for treatment of HES, has dramatically changed the prognosis of patients with primary (myeloid) forms of HES, it is ineffective in patients with other HES subtypes. For these nonmyeloid patients with HES, the development of eosinophil-targeting biologics (most notably, mepolizumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of HES) has been transformative. Nevertheless, important issues remain with respect to the efficacy and safety of these biologics in the treatment of the varied subtypes of HES. Moreover, with the increasing number of commercially available biologics with direct or indirect effects on eosinophils, questions related to the choice of initial biologic, potential reasons for biologic failure, and treatment options in the setting of incomplete response are becoming increasingly common.

Refractory Bullous Pemphigoid Successfully Treated with Reslizumab: A Possible Novel Therapeutic Modality

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a chronic, autoimmune blistering disease that has concerning morbidity and mortality rates. Recently, several studies have focused on eosinophils due to their significant role in the pathogenesis of BP, considering that they are ubiquitous in the serum, tissue, and blister fluids of patients with BP. With this context, precision therapy that targets mediators of eosinophil activity could be a possible novel therapeutic strategy. Interleukin (IL)-5 is crucial for B-cell maturation, which consequently results in immunoglobulin production, and promotes eosinophil differentiation, proliferation, and activation. To our best knowledge, reslizumab has not yet been reported to treat BP. Herein, we report a case of steroid- and omalizumab-resistant BP treated successfully using reslizumab. Our data suggest that IL-5 could be a novel specific biologic target within the entire immunopathogenesis of BP, and reslizumab would be a novel therapeutic modality.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

Improvement in Olfaction in Patients With CRSwNP and Severe Asthma Taking Anti-IgE and Anti-IL-5 Biologics: A Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), which is characterized by partial loss of smell (hyposmia) or total loss of smell (anosmia), is commonly associated with asthma and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD). CRSwNP worsens disease severity and quality of life. The objective of this real-world study was to determine whether biological treatments prescribed for severe asthma can improve olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. A further objective was to compare the improvement in in olfaction in N-ERD and non-N-ERD subgroups.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, observational study of 206 patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP undergoing biological treatment (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab).

RESULTS

Olfaction improved after treatment with all 4 monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab [35.8%], mepolizumab [35.4%], reslizumab [35.7%], and benralizumab [39.1%]), with no differences between the groups. Olfaction was more likely to improve in patients with atopy, more frequent use of short-course systemic corticosteroids, and larger polyp size. The proportion of patients whose olfaction improved was similar between the N-ERD (37%) and non-N-ERD (35.7%) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first real-world study to compare improvement in olfaction among patients undergoing long-term treatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab for severe asthma and associated CRSwNP. Approximately 4 out of 10 patients reported a subjective improvement in olfaction (with nonsignificant differences between biologic drugs). No differences were found for improved olfaction between the N-ERD and non-N-ERD groups.

Response to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: Definitions, Potential Reasons for Failure, and Therapeutic Options for Suboptimal Response

Real-life data reveal that more than half of severe asthma patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) do not achieve a complete response. Response to mAbs must be assessed holistically, considering all the clinically meaningful therapeutic goals, not only reduction of exacerbations and oral corticosteroids. There are 2 different ways of measuring the response to mAbs. One, qualitative, classifies patients according to the degree of disease control they have achieved, without explaining how much a given patient improves relative to the baseline (pre-mAb) clinical situation; the other, quantitative, scores the changes occurring after treatment. Both methods are complementary and essential to making clinical decisions on whether to continue treatment. The various potential causes of suboptimal response to mAbs include incorrect identification of the specific T2 pathways, comorbidities that reduce the room for improvement, insufficient dose, autoimmune phenomena, infections, change in the initial inflammatory endotype, and adverse events. Once a suboptimal response has been confirmed, a well-structured and multifaceted assessment of the potential causes of failure should be performed, with emphasis on the resulting inflammatory process of the airway after mAb therapy and the presence of chronic or recurrent infection. This investigation should guide the decision on the best therapeutic approach. The present review aims to help clinicians gain insights into how to measure response to mAbs and proceed in cases of suboptimal response.

Nonepisodic angioedema with eosinophilia after COVID-19 vaccination: a case successfully treated with reslizumab

BACKGROUND

Angioedema with eosinophilia (AE) is a rare allergic disease classified as episodic or nonepisodic. AE is characterized by angioedema, urticaria, fever, weight gain, and eosinophilia, but its etiology and pathogenesis have not yet been clarified.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

We present a 70-year-old woman presented with generalized edema and urticaria after Moderna COVID-19 vaccination. Peripheral blood eosinophil count was marked elevated and echocardiography and Doppler ultrasonography of both the upper and lower extremities were unremarkable. Her symptoms and peripheral blood eosinophil count were improved after systemic steroid therapy, but she failed to respond to steroid tapering. Reslizumab (anti-interluekin-5) was administered intravenously, and she remained symptom free with a normal eosinophil count during 8 months of reslizumab treatment without steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a case of nonepisodic AE after COVID-19 vaccination that was successfully treated with reslizumab.

Safety of Biologics for Atopic Diseases During Pregnancy

The high prevalence of atopic diseases in women of childbearing age reveals the need to determine the safety of biologics during pregnancy. This review summarizes the effects of 7 Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, tezepelumab, and tralokinumab) on maternal and fetal outcomes. For this purpose, we reviewed English-language publications to investigate whether the use of biologics for atopic diseases during pregnancy increased the risk of preterm delivery, stillbirth, low birth weight, or congenital malformations. Most publications found were case reports, case series, or observational studies reporting outcomes in a total of 313 pregnancies. No randomized controlled studies were identified. We found that biologics do not seem to influence maternal or fetal outcomes. Indeed, worsening of the underlying atopic disease during pregnancy appears to be more detrimental to the viability of the pregnancy. Given the small sample size and scarcity of studies, future research should include prospective studies with comparable control groups without exposure to biologics and multicenter registries for long-term follow-up.

Treatment with IL5-/IL-5 receptor antagonists in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS)

Purpose

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe delayed drug hypersensitivity reaction with exanthema, eosinophilia, and organ manifestations. After culprit drug withdrawal, systemic corticosteroids (CS) are the most widely used treatment, often requiring high doses for months. Blocking the IL-5/IL‑5 receptor axis with mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab is a promising targeted treatment with a good safety profile and no immunosuppressive effect. The aim of this study is to summarize current experience with the anti-IL5/IL-5-receptor therapy in DRESS.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all patients diagnosed with DRESS and treated with mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab in DRESS was performed. In addition, a PubMed-Medline search for publications on DRESS with anti-IL-5/IL‑5 receptor treatment was performed.

Results

Of the 14 cases identified, 6 patients were treated with mepolizumab, 6 with benralizumab, 1 patient with reslizumab, and 1 patient was switched from benralizumab to mepolizumab. The main indication for an IL‑5 blockade was a therapy-refractory course (7/14 [50.0%]), recurrent relapses (3/14 [21.4%]), and severe organ dysfunction (2/14 [14.3%]). In 13/14 (93%) cases, a rapid clinical improvement with suppression of eosinophilia and reduction of CS could be achieved. In all but two cases under mepolizumab (dose 100-600 mg) or reslizumab (dose according to body weight), two or more doses were necessary until resolution of DRESS. In 4/7 cases under benralizumab, a single 30 mg dose was sufficient.

Conclusion

Blockade of the IL-5/IL‑5 receptor axis appears to be a promising treatment in DRESS with fast clinical improvement, which may allow more rapid reduction of CS, and a good safety profile. In addition, a summary of recommendations on when to use blockade of the IL-5/IL‑5 receptor axis in DRESS treatment is provided.

Real-World Effectiveness of Reslizumab in Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma - First Initiators and Switchers

BACKGROUND

Reslizumab, a biologic targeting IL-5, has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use in randomized controlled trials and pre-post studies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, real-world effectiveness data of reslizumab are scarce, and it is unknown whether reslizumab has added value after switching from another type 2 biologic.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate (1) the real-world effectiveness of reslizumab on severe asthma exacerbations, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and overall treatment response, both in biologic-naive patients who initiated reslizumab and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic; and (2) physicians' experience with reslizumab treatment.

METHODS

This observational real-world study evaluated data from 134 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma included in the Dutch severe asthma registry (RAPSODI), who initiated reslizumab treatment (4-weekly infusions, 0.3 mg/kg) before April 2020 and had follow-up data for 6 months and greater. Clinical asthma experts completed surveys on their experience with reslizumab treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, reslizumab reduced the exacerbation rate (odds ratio [95% CI] = 0.10 [0.05-0.21]; P < .001), oral corticosteroid use (OR [95% CI], 0.2 [0.0-0.5]; P < .001), and maintenance dose (median [CI], 5.0 [0.0-10.0] to 0.0 [0.0-5.0]; P < .001), with comparable results in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and switchers. The overall response to reslizumab was graded good or excellent in 59.2% of patients. The additive effectiveness of reslizumab after switching from another biologic was reflected in physicians' surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data show that reslizumab reduces severe asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, both in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic. This additional value of reslizumab was recognized by clinical asthma experts.

Korean Adolescent Patient with Manifestations of Lymphocyte Variant Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and Episodic Angioedema with Eosinophilia, Treated with Reslizumab

A four-year-old female patient visited the pediatric hematologic clinic due to periodic generalized edema and eosinophilia. Laboratory assessment showed an eosinophil count of 40.02×109/L (73.6% of white blood cells). A bone marrow aspirate smear film showed no signs of malignant cells but had hypercellular marrow particles with eosinophilia (45% of all nucleated cells) and 52% of eosinophils were immature. Other laboratory tests showed an increased IgM level of 827 mg/dL, and lymphocyte phenotyping by flow cytometry revealed an aberrant CD3-CD4+ T-cell population of 27-53×109/L (1.9-3.6% of lymphocytes). Polymerase chain reaction analysis for the T-cell receptor gamma gene rearrangement showed a T-cell clonality peak. At the age of 13, allogeneic stem cell transplantation was performed, but with primary rejection. From the age of 17, she has continued receiving 3 mg/kg of reslizumab intravenously every 4 weeks for 21 months. Since reslizumab treatment was initiated, her eosinophil count remained consistently within the normal range. This is the first report describing the effective use of reslizumab in a Korean adolescent patient for the management of lymphocytic-variant hypereosinophilic syndrome (L-HES). Since the patient showed clinical manifestations of L-HES as well as episodic angioedema with eosinophilia (EAE), a continuous periodic examination is required given the higher risk of developing lymphoma or leukemia.

Pharmacological approaches to target type 2 cytokines in asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic lung disease, affecting more than 250 million people worldwide. The heterogeneity of asthma phenotypes represents a challenge for adequate assessment and treatment of the disease. However, approximately 50% of asthma patients present with chronic type 2 inflammation initiated by alarmins, such as IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), and driven by the T_H2 interleukins IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13. These cytokines have therefore become important therapeutic targets in asthma. Here, we discuss current knowledge on the structure and functions of these cytokines in asthma. We review preclinical and clinical data obtained with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting these cytokines or their receptors, as well as novel strategies under development, including bispecific mAbs, designed ankyrin repeat proteins (DARPins), small molecule inhibitors and vaccines targeting type 2 cytokines.

Real-World Efficacy of Treatment with Benralizumab, Dupilumab, Mepolizumab and Reslizumab for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma is a major cause of morbidity. Some patients may benefit from biological therapies. Most evaluations of these treatments are derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but few patients are eligible for these trials. Studies involving more diverse groups of participants exist but there is a lack of precise pooled estimates.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy of recently and nearly licensed biological therapies for severe asthma to assess the generalisability of the RCT data.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes including exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) usage, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁ ) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were examined. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies examining biologicals in real-world settings were identified, they mostly focused on benralizumab and mepolizumab. The introduction of biologicals reduced the annualised exacerbation rate significantly by -3.79 (95% CI -4.53, -3.04), -3.17 (95% CI -3.74, -2.59) and -6.72 (95% CI -8.47, -4.97) with benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab respectively. Likewise, improvements were observed in FEV₁ (0.17 L 95% CI 0.11, 0.24) and FeNO (-14.23 ppb 95% CI -19.71, -8.75) following treatment with mepolizumab. After treatment with benralizumab there was an increase in FEV₁ (0.21 L 95% CI 0.08, 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate that anti-IL5 biologicals may improve the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs. The data were mainly retrospective and unadjusted, so estimated effect sizes may not be reliable. More data is needed to acquire accurate effect estimates in different subpopulations of patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Interleukin-5 Therapies in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) remain unresolved, and relevant meta-analyses are lacking. Additionally, mepolizumab has been evaluated in far fewer patients, and the evidence is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify evidence gaps that will guide future investigation of therapies targeting interleukin (IL)-5 signaling (anti-IL-5Rα or anti-IL-5) for CRSwNP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis that were registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42021276867). A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on September 2, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing anti-IL-5 treatments (anti-IL-5Rα or anti-IL-5) in adult patients for CRSwNP were included.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 799 patients evaluating the efficacy and safety of treatments targeting IL-5 pathway (benralizumab [anti-IL-5Rα], mepolizumab, and reslizumab [anti-IL-5]) were included. The overall pooled meta-analysis showed that anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better nasal polyp score (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.87, -0.55]; p < 0.00001). Anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better nasal congestion score (WMD: -1.73; 95% CI: [-2.29, -1.16]; p < 0.00001). Anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) score (WMD: -11.30; 95% CI: [-14.77, -7.83]; p < 0.00001). The overall pooled meta-analysis showed that anti-IL-5 treatments were associated with a significantly better University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score (WMD: 2.09; 95% CI: [0.42, 3.77]; p = 0.01). Anti-IL-5 treatments significantly reduced the loss of smell score in the overall pooled meta-analysis (WMD: -1.38; 95% CI: [-1.97, -0.79]; p < 0.00001). In the overall pooled meta-analysis, anti-IL-5 treatments showed no difference with the placebo in the risk of adverse events (AEs; risk ratio [RR]: 1.01; 95% CI: [-0.93, 1.09]; p = 0.83) and serious AEs (SAEs; RR: 0.73; 95% CI: [0.40, 1.34]; p = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis identified that anti-IL-5 treatments significantly improved the size of nasal polyps, health-related quality of life, and sense of smell in moderate to severe CRSwNP, and they were safe and well tolerated.

Appraisal of the Real-World Effectiveness of Biologic Therapies in Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease

BACKGROUND

There are no head-to-head studies for patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) comparing any of the 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved respiratory biologic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

Explore outcomes in subjects with AERD using biologic therapies in a real-world clinic setting.

METHODS

A retrospective pilot study was conducted for subjects with AERD who had been prescribed omalizumab (anti-IgE), mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), reslizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (anti-IL-5 receptor alpha [anti-IL-5Rα]), or dupilumab (anti-IL-4 receptor alpha [anti-IL-4Rα]). Clinical outcomes pre- versus postinitiation of biologic therapy were explored including symptoms, 22-item sino-nasal outcome test scores, systemic corticosteroid and antibiotic prescriptions, and emergency room visits related to AERD.

RESULTS

Of the 74 subjects, 58.1% (n = 43) had used 1 biologic, though many (41.9%, n = 31) trialed more than 1 biologic. Of the 50 subjects who had used anti-IL-4Rα therapy, 98% (49 of 50) still had this therapy prescribed at study completion compared with 48.6% (17 of 35) and 26.9% (7 of 26) of those who used anti-IgE and anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor alpha (anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα) therapy, respectively. Among those on anti-IL-4Rα therapy, there was a significant reduction in median total 22-item sino-nasal outcome test scores (51 to 19, P = .0002), corticosteroid bursts (2 to 0, P < .0001), and median number of antibiotic courses for respiratory disease (1 to 0, P = .0469) prebiologic versus postbiologic initiation. No statistically significant difference in those outcomes was observed for individuals on anti-IgE or anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-IL-4Rα therapy led to significantly higher rates of clinical improvement in AERD when compared with anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα and anti-IgE biologic therapies. Prospective studies would help clarify best practices for the use of biologic therapies in AERD.

Impact of Biologic Therapy on the Small Airways Asthma Phenotype

The small airways dysfunction (SAD) asthma phenotype is characterised by narrowing of airways < 2 mm in diameter between generations 8 and 23 of the bronchial tree. Recently, this has become particularly relevant as measurements of small airways using airway oscillometry for example, are strong determinants of asthma control and exacerbations in moderate-to-severe asthma. The small airways can be assessed using spirometry as forced expiratory flow rate between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF_25-75) and has been deemed more accurate in detecting small airways dysfunction than forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁). Oscillometry as the heterogeneity in resistance between 5 and 20 Hz (R5-R20), low frequency reactance at 5 Hz (X5) or area under the reactance curve between 5 Hz and the resonant frequency can also be used to assess the small airways. The small airways can also be assessed using the multiple breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) test giving rise to values including functional residual capacity, lung clearance index and ventilation distribution heterogeneity in the conducting (Scond) and the acinar (Sacin) airways. The ATLANTIS group showed that the prevalence of small airways disease in asthma defined on FEF_25-75, oscillometry and MBNW all increased with progressive GINA asthma disease stages. As opposed to topical inhaler therapy that might not adequately penetrate the small airways, it is perhaps more intuitive that systemic anti-inflammatory therapy with biologics targeting downstream cytokines and upstream epithelial anti-alarmins may offer a promising solution to SAD. Here we therefore aim to appraise the available evidence for the effect of anti-IgE, anti-IL5 (Rα), anti-IL4Rα, anti-TSLP and anti-IL33 biologics on small airways disease in patients with severe asthma.

Successful Treatment of Imatinib-Induced DRESS Syndrome Using Reslizumab without Cessation of Imatinib: A Case Report

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction; reported cases are sometimes imatinib mesylate induced. The main treatment is the withdrawal of the causative drug, and most cases with imatinib-induced DRESS syndrome required withdrawal of imatinib. However, in such cases involving anticancer drugs, this may compromise cancer treatment. Herein, we report a patient with imatinib-induced DRESS syndrome that was successfully treated with reslizumab while continuing imatinib treatment. A 65-year-old female presented with facial edema and generalized skin rash after being given 400 mg imatinib 2 weeks ago for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. After stopping imatinib, the clinical symptoms improved. Imatinib desensitization was performed, and it was administered again. However, the clinical symptoms reappeared more severely 2 months after restart of imatinib, and the peripheral absolute eosinophil count increased to 1,690/μL. A diagnosis of imatinib-induced DRESS syndrome was made, based on the Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (RegiSCAR) criteria. Imatinib desensitization was repeated, but the clinical symptoms reappeared, and the peripheral eosinophilia persisted. We administered reslizumab, an interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, without cessation of imatinib. The absolute eosinophil count decreased immediately, and the clinical symptoms improved gradually. After 2 weeks, the clinical symptoms reappeared mildly, but after administering reslizumab again, these disappeared completely. Reslizumab can be considered in the management of DRESS syndrome in cases wherein the causative medication needs to be continued.

Monoclonal antibody treatment for severe uncontrolled asthma in Spain: analytical map

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) have become available to treat more efficiently patients with severe uncontrolled asthma (SUA). However, the use of mABs is lower than expected given the prevalence of SUA, with significant disparities in the use of these treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the proportion of patients with SUA treated with mABs in Spain, and to analyze some of the factors that could determine these prescription patterns.

METHODS

An analysis was performed on the data provided from the Hospitals National Health System (NHS) 2018 catalogue where Chest Diseases Department and a Hospital Pharmacy were available. Random sampling was performed to determine the sample size, stratifying proportionally by geographic area and hospital level. Characteristics of the participating sites, as well as the prescribing of mABs were collected, which included geographic area, hospital levels, prescribing medical specialities, types of clinics, and mABs prescribed.

RESULTS

Data from 90 hospitals were analyzed (Response rate 64.3%). Level 4 hospitals, the Canary Islands geographical area, and the presence of a high complexity Asthma Healthcare Unit (ACU) were associated with a higher probability that the SUA was treated with mABs.

CONCLUSION

The map of the prescribing of mABs for SUA in Spain shows a significant variation by geographic area, hospital level, type of clinic, and the accreditation level of the ACUs. At the current time, there appears to be significant under-prescribing of these treatments.

Targeted Anti-IL-5 Therapies and Future Therapeutics for Hypereosinophilic Syndrome and Rare Eosinophilic Conditions

Eosinophilic inflammation is a component of many atopic diseases such as asthma, and biologics targeting eosinophils have been shown to be effective in subsets of these patients. However, there also are conditions in which eosinophils are the key inflammatory cells responsible for driving tissue damage. In these eosinophilic diseases such as hyper-eosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic esophagitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), the development of biologics inhibiting eosinophilic inflammation have offered targeted therapeutic strategies for patients that have not responded well to typical first line drugs, which often have significant adverse side effects with poor disease modification or recurrent relapse with significant morbidity. IL-5 has long been recognized as the key inflammatory cytokine involved in the priming and survival of eosinophils and their proliferation and maturation in eosinophilic disease. There are a number of trials and case series demonstrating the immunomodulatory benefits of anti-IL-5 therapies in these diseases with good clinical responses. Yet, due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these conditions, anti-IL-5 therapies have not resulted in disease remission for all patients. Clearly, further research into the use of anti-IL-5 therapies in various eosinophilic diseases is needed and ongoing investigation into other immune mechanisms underlying chronic eosinophilic diseases may provide alternative therapies for these challenging conditions.

The Current State of Biologic Therapies for Treatment of Refractory Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with the immune processes behind the chronic inflammation underlying this disorder differing between the various identified asthma endotypes. In addition to heterogeneity in underlying disease pathophysiology, asthmatics fall across a broad spectrum of disease severity and can vary greatly in their response to convention asthma therapies. A small percentage of patients with severe persistent asthma will remain uncontrolled despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and a long-acting beta-agonist. Less than two decades ago, there were few options for these treatment-refractory asthmatics beyond chronic systemic steroids, with their myriad of treatment-limiting side effects. However, in recent years, there have been a growing number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologic medications with targets that include immunoglobulin E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5), the IL-5 receptor and the IL-4/IL-13 receptor-alpha subunit. The current FDA-approved biologics for severe persistent asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab. These monoclonal antibodies have been shown to improve asthma control, decrease asthma exacerbations and decrease glucocorticoid dependence in certain subsets of patients with asthma. The optimal biologic for treatment of severe asthma varies from patient to patient, depending on the underlying pathophysiology of the patient's disease. For each of these medications, there are certain biomarkers that can help predict whether a patient is likely to respond favorably to the medication. This review will discuss the currently approved biologics for severe persistent asthma, including their indications, efficacy and side effects.

How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit

Five biologic medications are approved in the United States for the treatment of asthma that is not well controlled with other therapies. All target asthma with elevated type 2 inflammatory markers, such as elevated eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, or total and specific IgE. Asthma severity, phenotype, age, biomarkers, treatment goals/outcomes, comorbid conditions, safety, and cost should all help guide the initial biologic choice. In addition, a shared decision-making process with the patient is needed to optimize adherence, with special attention to patient preference regarding outcomes, safety concerns, and medication administration options. After a biologic agent is initiated, sufficient time is needed to monitor efficacy and response. For patients who do not respond favorably, patient-, disease-, and medication-related factors should be considered and remedied, if possible. Persistent suboptimal responders necessitate a reexamination of asthma phenotype, biomarkers, and the suspected immune response pathways. For some patients, a change in biologic therapy or other therapeutic options may be warranted. In this review, we examine the clinical approach for choosing an initial biologic for the treatment of asthma, the assessment of response to biologics, and the process of troubleshooting and adjusting biologic treatment for those patients with suboptimal responses.

Lower Use of Biologics for the Treatment of Asthma in Publicly Insured Individuals

BACKGROUND

Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of poorly controlled asthma, publicly insured individuals are less likely to receive biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To assess biologic use by payer among individuals with asthma.

METHODS

We used IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative, all-payer audit of ambulatory care in the United States, to describe the patterns of use by payer.

RESULTS

Asthma treatment visits in which a biologic product was reported increased from approximately 0.1% of asthma-related visits in 2003 to 1% in 2015 and doubled to 2% by 2019. Omalizumab use initially increased from 2003 to 2006 and plateaued till 2015 when its use declined modestly, coinciding with the release of additional biologic products. In 2019, omalizumab accounted for 37% of biologic treatment visits, mepolizumab 21%, benralizumab 27%, dupilumab 15%, and reslizumab <1%. Biologic treatment visits were higher for privately insured individuals (28.3 per 1000 visits) compared with publicly insured individuals (16.3 per 1000 visits). This difference persisted after accounting for age, sex, and race using nationally representative estimates. Whites accounted for a disproportionate amount of biologic treatment visits among the publicly insured (80%) despite accounting for only 60% of publicly insured asthma treatment visits. No biologic treatment visits were observed for individuals who were uninsured. Half of dupilumab visits were for publicly insured patients, compared with 22% of mepolizumab/benralizumab and 27% of omalizumab visits.

CONCLUSION

Biologics were uncommonly used among patients with asthma, and the basis for disproportionately lower use of biologics among the publicly insured, where the burden of uncontrolled asthma is greatest, merits further investigation.

Biologicals in the Treatment of Pediatric Atopic Diseases

The management of atopic diseases such as severe asthma, severe atopic dermatitis, and severe food allergy in childhood is challenging. In particular, there are safety concerns regarding the use of high-dose corticosteroids. The recent development of biologicals and their approval for the treatment of children offer a new, very promising, and more personalized therapy option. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab are currently approved as add-on treatments of severe asthma in children and have been shown to be effective in improvement of asthma control and reduction of exacerbations. Dupilumab is the only biological approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in adolescents so far. It has been demonstrated to significantly improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis.However, safety data for biologicals used in atopic diseases in children and adolescents are still very limited. Biologicals are generally considered to be safe in adults. These data are often extrapolated to children. Additionally, data for long-term use are lacking. Thus, the safety profiles of those biologicals cannot yet be conclusively assessed.

Variability in Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients with Eosinophilic Asthma

BACKGROUND

Blood eosinophil (EOS) counts are critical to the accurate identification of asthma phenotypes. However, there are few long-term data on intraindividual EOS count variability among patients with eosinophilic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis of 2 phase III clinical trials from the reslizumab BREATH program explored the variability of blood EOS counts in patients with eosinophilic asthma receiving placebo.

METHODS

Pooled data from study participants receiving placebo (previously randomized 1:1 to receive reslizumab or placebo) were analyzed for blood EOS count variability over 52 weeks. EOS counts were measured up to twice during screening, every 4 weeks from randomization to the end of treatment and at the 90-day follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Of 476 included patients, 31 (6.5%), 38 (8.0%), 55 (11.6%), and 352 (73.9%) patients had baseline blood EOS counts of <150, ≥150 to <300, ≥300 to <400, and ≥400 cells/μL, respectively. Patients frequently shifted between EOS count categories during the 52-week treatment period, most often moving to the highest EOS category. Among patients in each of the lower 3 EOS categories, 27% to 56% of patients shifted to the ≥400 cells/μL category at some point during the treatment period.

CONCLUSION

Intraindividual variability in blood EOS count was high among patients with eosinophilic asthma receiving placebo, with shifts to ≥400 cells/μL from lower categories frequently observed. Repeat determinations of blood EOS count may be important to ensure appropriate selection of therapy in patients with severe asthma.

Long-Term Therapy Response to Anti-IL-5 Biologics in Severe Asthma-A Real-Life Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma show different responses to various anti-IL-5 biologics, ranging from super response to nonresponse. Residual disease manifestations observed in partial responders may prompt physicians to switch between biologics. More data on response, switches, and residual disease manifestations are needed to improve personalized treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess (1) prevalences and predictors of super, partial, and nonresponders to long-term anti-IL-5 treatment, (2) frequency and reasons for switches between anti-IL-5 biologics, and (3) nature of residual disease manifestations.

METHODS

In this 2-year follow-up study, patients with severe asthma were included who initiated an anti-IL-5 biologic (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab) (n = 114). Patient characteristics (clinical, functional, inflammatory) and comorbidities were collected at baseline and 2-year follow-up. "Super responders" showed no residual disease manifestations at 2-year follow-up, "partial responders" experienced residual disease manifestations, and "nonresponders" discontinued anti-IL-5 treatment after less than 2 years because of clinical worsening.

RESULTS

After 2-year anti-IL-5 treatment, 14% of patients were super responders, 69% partial responders, and 11% nonresponders. Super response was predicted by shorter asthma duration and higher FEV₁, and tended to be associated with adult-onset asthma, absence of nasal polyps, and lower body mass index. Switches between anti-IL-5 biologics occurred frequently (41%). After 2-year treatment, most common residual disease manifestations included impaired lung function (59%), uncontrolled sinonasal disease (58%), and uncontrolled asthma symptoms (48%).

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 years of anti-IL-5 treatment, a favorable response was found in 83% of patients with severe asthma, including a super response in 14%. Most partial responders show impaired lung function or uncontrolled sinonasal disease, causing physicians to switch between biologics.

Biologics for the Treatments of Allergic Conditions: Severe Asthma

By selectively targeting specific steps of the immune inflammation cascade, biologic drugs for severe asthma have substantially contributed to increase the standard of care, to reduce drug-related morbidity. and most importantly to ameliorate patients' quality of life. Upcoming molecules are going to provide a chance for severe phenotypes besides Th2 high through the interaction with epithelial and innate immunity. Some practical aspects including optimal treatment duration, the possibility of a dose treatment modulation, the place and relevance of ICS in best responders are still under debate. Long-term safety, especially when interacting with innate immunity needs to be further investigated.

Efficacy of Reslizumab Treatment in Exacerbation-Prone Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma have increased risk of clinical asthma exacerbations (CAEs), impaired lung function, and lower quality of life (QoL) compared with patients with noneosinophilic asthma. The efficacy and safety of intravenous reslizumab have been demonstrated in 2 duplicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies.

OBJECTIVE

We present findings from post hoc analyses of the subgroup of patients from the phase 3 studies with severe (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] Step 4 or 5) eosinophilic asthma who had ≥2 or ≥3 CAEs in the 12 months before screening.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma were randomized (1:1) to reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. Outcomes assessed included CAEs, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), and Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ-6) and Asthma QoL Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores.

RESULTS

Of 953 patients randomized, 318 (reslizumab: n = 156; placebo: n = 162) and 164 (reslizumab: n = 72; placebo: n = 92) were GINA 4/5 with ≥2 CAEs in the prior year and ≥3 CAEs in the prior year, respectively. Reslizumab significantly improved CAE rate, time to first CAE, and the proportion of patients who experienced ≥1 CAE versus placebo in both CAE subgroups. Improvements in FEV₁, ACQ-6 and AQLQ scores, and systemic corticosteroid burden were also observed with reslizumab versus placebo after 52 weeks of treatment in both CAE subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Reslizumab reduced CAE frequency and improved lung function, asthma control, and QoL versus placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with a high CAE rate before treatment.

Immunomodulators and Biologics: Beyond Stepped-Care Therapy

This review highlights recent data concerning efficacy and safety of biological agents that are currently approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as several agents that will likely soon be FDA approved, for management of properly selected patients with severe persistent asthma that is poorly or not well controlled despite "stepped care" management according to best evidence.

Effect of Anti-IL5, Anti-IL5R, Anti-IL13 Therapy on Asthma Exacerbations: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several new treatments for severe asthma have become available in the last decade; yet, little data exist to guide their use in specific patient populations.

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis was conducted comparing the efficacy of FDA-approved monoclonal antibody therapies in preventing exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

PubMed and Ovid were searched from inception until July 2019 for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab, in preventing acute exacerbations of asthma. Studies were included if they reported data for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (defined in this meta-analysis as absolute eosinophil count ≥ 250 cells/μL). Annualized rate ratios for asthma exacerbations (during treatment) were calculated and converted to log rate ratios. Direct and indirect treatment estimates (for inter-drug differences) were analyzed using frequentist network meta-analysis methodology in R and treatments were ranked based on P-scores.

RESULTS

In total, nine studies were included in the final analysis. Network meta-analysis revealed that all drugs were superior to placebo in preventing rates of asthma exacerbation in the study population and no inter-drug differences existed. Dupilumab was found to have the greatest magnitudes of effect on decreasing log rate ratio of asthma exacerbation based on P-score (0.83).

CONCLUSION

Benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab are all associated with decreased asthma exacerbations in patients with eosinophilic asthma, with no significant inter-drug differences.

Efficacy of Intravenous Reslizumab in Oral Corticosteroid-Dependent Asthma

BACKGROUND

Reslizumab displays efficacy in patients with inadequately controlled eosinophilic asthma; previous reports in oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy of reslizumab in oral corticosteroid-dependent patients and benefits on oral corticosteroid burden.

METHODS

We report post hoc analyses of pooled data from duplicate, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Patients aged 12 to 75 years with inadequately controlled, moderate-to-severe asthma were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks, stratified by oral corticosteroid use at enrollment and by region. Assessments included efficacy and predictors of clinical asthma exacerbation response in oral corticosteroid-dependent patients, and systemic corticosteroids burden in the overall population.

RESULTS

Patients were randomized to reslizumab (n = 477) or placebo (n = 476); 73 (15%) patients in each group were taking oral corticosteroids at baseline. Reslizumab was favored over placebo for all efficacy end points in oral corticosteroid-dependent patients, with numerically greater improvements in oral corticosteroid-dependent patients than the overall population. Having 2 or more versus 1 clinical asthma exacerbation in the previous 12 months was the strongest positive predictor of reduced exacerbation risk with reslizumab (risk reduction, 77.5% vs 15.2%; P ≤ .02). Significantly fewer new systemic corticosteroid prescriptions were issued per patient receiving reslizumab versus placebo (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 1.07 vs 1.0 ± 1.52; P < .0001). Total and per-patient systemic corticosteroid burdens were lower: 121,135 versus 290,977 mg and 254 versus 611 mg/patient, respectively (both P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral corticosteroid-dependent patients benefited from reslizumab across asthma efficacy outcome measures. Reslizumab-treated patients required fewer new systemic corticosteroid prescriptions and had a lower systemic corticosteroid burden compared with placebo.

Safety of Reslizumab in Uncontrolled Asthma with Eosinophilia: A Pooled Analysis from 6 Trials

BACKGROUND

Intravenous reslizumab, a monoclonal IL-5 antibody, is approved for treating severe asthma with eosinophilia. Limited structured information is available on the safety of reslizumab in larger populations.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety profile of intravenous reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg by analyzing data from 6 asthma clinical trials: 5 placebo-controlled (duration ≤52 weeks) and 1 open-label extension (up to 2 years of treatment).

METHODS

Patients were aged 12 to 75 years with inadequately controlled asthma with eosinophilia. In the placebo-controlled trials, 730 patients received placebo and 1028 received reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg.

RESULTS

Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs occurred in higher percentages of patients in the placebo group (81% and 9%) than in the reslizumab group (67% and 6%). Asthma, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infection were the most common AEs with placebo and reslizumab. Three cases of anaphylaxis, related to reslizumab, were successfully managed with standard therapies. No significant difference in the incidence of malignancies was seen when compared with placebo or the general population. Among 756 patients with more than 12 months of reslizumab exposure, the AE rate was lower than in the placebo-controlled trials (367.3 vs 433.9 events/100 patient-years). The incidence of AEs in patients on treatment for more than 12 months was no higher than in patients with shorter treatment durations.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis confirms that treatment with intravenous reslizumab for more than 12 months is well tolerated in patients with asthma, with no evidence of rare safety events that were not detected in individual trials.

Monoclonal antibodies for severe asthma: Pharmacokinetic profiles

Several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) are currently approved for the treatment of severe asthma. They have complex pharmacokinetic profiles. These profiles are unique in that they are dependent on their structure as well as can be markedly influenced by the biology of their target antigen, but their general behaviour can still be considered a class property, similar to their endogenous IgG counterpart. They cannot be administered by oral route, have a slow distribution into tissue, are metabolized to peptides and amino acids in several tissues but are protected from degradation by binding to protective receptors (the FcRn), which explains their long elimination half-lives. Their clearance is nonlinear because of the saturation of the target-mediated elimination. Also anti-drug antibody (ADA) response and off-target binding, as well as their glycosylation pattern, can influence the pharmacokinetics of mAbs.

Efficacy and Safety of Reslizumab in Patients with Severe Asthma with Inadequate Response to Omalizumab: A Multicenter, Open-Label Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma could qualify for different biologic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of weight-based intravenous reslizumab dosing in patients who have previously failed therapy with omalizumab.

METHODS

We carried out a 24-week prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-group, self-controlled study in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who had previously failed to respond to omalizumab. The main objective was to determine whether treatment with reslizumab significantly improved asthma symptoms assessed by the Asthma Control Test (ACT) at week 24. Secondary objectives were to evaluate symptoms at weeks 4 and 12, change in FEV₁ at week 24, and the incidence of severe exacerbations over the study period.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (62.1% women, median age, 50.8 years) were included in the study. The median ACT score significantly increased from 13.0 (interquartile range, 8.0-18.0) at baseline to 21.0 (interquartile range, 14.0-24.0) at 24 weeks (P = .002). Only 2 of 29 patients developed at least 1 severe exacerbation during follow-up and none of them required hospitalization. Overall, 15 of 25 patients (60%) were considered as being controlled (ACT score of ≥20 and no exacerbations) at week 24. The percentage of patients who were receiving daily systemic corticosteroids significantly decreased from 72.4% to 52.0% (P = .019). Adverse events were mostly moderate and within the range of previously reported side effects with reslizumab.

CONCLUSION

Reslizumab is an effective and safe option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of omalizumab failure.

Higher Binding Affinity and in vitro Potency of Reslizumab for Interleukin-5 Compared With Mepolizumab

Reslizumab and mepolizumab are recently approved monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of severe (uncontrolled) eosinophilic asthma. Both are effective in neutralizing the function of interleukin-5 (IL-5). This study is the first to compare the binding affinity and in vitro potency of both antibodies in head-to-head assays. Two assays assessed binding affinity (using the equilibrium dissociation constant [K_D]) of each drug for human IL-5. In the Biacore surface plasmon resonance assay, the association constant (k_on) values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 3.93 × 10⁶ and 1.83 × 10⁵, respectively. The dissociation constant (k_off) values were 4.29 × 10⁻⁴ and 2.14 × 10⁻⁴, respectively. Calculated K_D values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 109 and 1,170 pM, respectively, representing an approximately 11-fold stronger binding affinity with reslizumab. In the Kinetic Exclusion Assay, the k_on values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 3.17 × 10⁶ and 1.32 × 10⁵, respectively. The k_off values were 1.36 × 10⁻⁵ and 1.48 × 10⁻⁵, respectively. Measured K_D values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 4.3 and 112 pM, respectively, representing an approximately 26-fold stronger binding affinity for reslizumab. A human-IL-5-dependent cell proliferation assay was developed to assess in vitro potency, based on a human cell line selected for enhanced surface expression of IL-5 receptor-alpha and consistent proliferation response to IL-5. The concentration at which 50% inhibition occurred (IC₅₀) was determined for both antibodies. Reslizumab and mepolizumab inhibited IL-5-dependent cell proliferation, with IC₅₀ values of approximately 91.1 and 286.5 pM, respectively, representing on average 3.1-fold higher potency with reslizumab. In conclusion, comparative assays show that reslizumab has higher affinity binding for and in vitro potency against human IL-5 compared with mepolizumab. However, these results do not take into consideration the different methods of administration of reslizumab and mepolizumab.

Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus affecting both children and adults, with debilitating and progressive symptoms. EoE has shown an explosive epidemiological rise in the past few decades. Many patients experience a poor level of disease control despite maximal use of available guideline-based therapies, which seriously hampers their quality of life. Diet restrictions and systemic and topical corticosteroids are the current mainstays of EoE therapy, but are associated with significant efficacy, treatment compliance, and safety issues such as oral or esophageal candidiasis, growth retardation, osteopenia, osteoporosis, glucose intolerance, and cataract formation. As EoE is a chronic inflammatory disease, immune cells and cytokines are responsible for the inflammatory response and symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies specifically targeting these pathophysiologic effectors offer more potent relief of histologic and clinical disease features while keeping off-target adverse effects to a minimum. Herein, we have reviewed the current evidence regarding efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies including mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), reslizumab (anti-IL-5), QAX576 (anti-IL-13), omalizumab (anti-immunoglobulin-E), and infliximab (anti-TNF-α) in treatment of EoE. Our review indicates that although the use of monoclonal antibodies for EoE treatment is safe with limited and reversible adverse events, however, it is not yet possible to reach a final verdict on the efficacy of mAbs in EoE. Future well-designed studies are needed to clarify the exact role of mAbs in EoE.

Effects of Reslizumab on Asthma Outcomes in a Subgroup of Eosinophilic Asthma Patients with Self-Reported Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps

BACKGROUND

An estimated 7% of patients with asthma have chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), and more than 80% have at least some radiographic evidence of sinonasal inflammation. Aspirin sensitivity is strongly associated with elevated blood eosinophil levels and increased asthma severity. Intravenous (IV) reslizumab has been shown to improve asthma control in patients with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE

These post hoc analyses of pooled data from 2 BREATH phase 3 clinical trials, studies 1 and 2 (NCT01287039 and NCT01285323), examined asthma-related outcomes in patients with comorbid, self-reported CRSwNP with and without aspirin sensitivity.

METHODS

Patients aged 12-75 years with elevated blood eosinophils (≥400 cells/μL) and inadequately controlled asthma were randomized to receive placebo or reslizumab (3 mg/kg IV) every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Patients continued their background asthma maintenance therapy during the study. Information regarding the presence of CRSwNP was obtained through patient-reported medical history.

RESULTS

Add-on reslizumab treatment reduced the frequency of clinical asthma exacerbations by 83% versus placebo among patients with CRSwNP. Among patients with and without aspirin sensitivity, reductions of 79% and 84%, respectively, were observed. Patients with CRSwNP (with and without aspirin sensitivity) treated with reslizumab add-on therapy also had significant improvements in lung function, as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second, compared with placebo. Among patients with CRSwNP, reslizumab was also associated with improvements in patient-reported asthma control and asthma quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with eosinophilic asthma and self-reported CRSwNP, with and without aspirin sensitivity, are highly responsive to treatment with reslizumab for asthma-related outcomes. These findings suggest that prospective investigation of reslizumab in this patient population is warranted.

Comparative Efficacy of Anti IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 Drugs for Treatment of Eosinophilic Asthma: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several new biologics have been studied in patients with eosinophilic asthma with varying degrees of response on clinical outcomes. No head-to-head trial has directly compared the efficacy of these drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize data on the relative efficacy of benralizumab, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and tralokinumab using network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed from inception to December 15th, 2017.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used the 'frequentist' methodology with random effect models using primarily 'netmeta' function in R to generate network meta-analysis results. Outcomes assessed included changes in forced expiratory volume-in 1 s (FEV₁), asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ). We also separately analyzed the annualized rate ratios for asthma exacerbations for each drug and compared to placebo. For all outcomes assessed, all drugs were superior to placebo except tralokinumab. In terms of magnitude of effect, dupilumab, followed by reslizumab and benralizumab showed the greatest increase in FEV₁, 0.16L (95% CIs: 0.08-0.24), 0.13L (0.10-0.17), and 0.12L (0.08-0.17), compared to placebo. While mepolizumab, followed by dupliumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab showed reductions in ACQ scores, in order of magnitude of effect, dupilumab, followed by mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab showed the greatest increase in AQLQ scores. All drugs decreased asthma exacerbations but the results were only significant for reslizumab and dupilumab.

CONCLUSIONS

All drugs except for tralokinumab showed improvements in FEV₁, ACQ, and AQLQ. Only reslizumab and dupilumab were associated with statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbation rates.

The use of intravenous versus subcutaneous monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe asthma: a review

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) approved for use as add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma target the underlying pathogenesis of asthma.

MAIN BODY

Omalizumab binds immunoglobulin E (IgE), thereby inhibiting its interaction with the high-affinity IgE receptor and reducing the quantity of free IgE available to trigger the allergic cascade. Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 mAbs mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab block the interaction between IL-5 and its receptor on eosinophils, thus targeting the eosinophilic pathway in asthma. Most mAbs are available as intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) formulations, as their high molecular weight and gastric degradation preclude oral administration. This review compares the pharmacology, efficacy, immunogenicity, injection- and infusion-related adverse drug reactions of subcutaneously administered omalizumab and mepolizumab with the intravenously administered reslizumab. In terms of pharmacokinetics, IV route of administration appears to be superior to the SC route due to quicker absorption, greater bioavailability, shorter time to maximum serum concentration and similar elimination half-life. Route of administration does not appear to translate into striking differences in efficacy and safety of mAbs used for the treatment of severe asthma, as all are generally considered to be effective and well tolerated. Hypersensitivity and administration-related reactions have been described with both IV and SC mAbs.

CONCLUSION

mABs are effective and have low immunogenicity due to their nature as humanised antibodies. Evidence on the use of mAbs in indications other than severe asthma suggest that both the SC and the IV routes of administrations have their respective advantages and disadvantages; but their full utility remains to be elucidated.

Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Reslizumab in Patients with Eosinophilic Asthma

BACKGROUND

In placebo-controlled trials, reslizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and improved lung function and asthma control in patients with eosinophilic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This open-label extension study evaluated safety and efficacy of reslizumab for up to 24 months.

METHODS

After participation in 1 of 3 placebo-controlled, phase III trials in moderate-to-severe eosinophilic asthma, patients received reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. Adverse events (AEs), lung function, and patient-reported asthma control were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the open-label extension, 1,051 patients received ≥1 reslizumab dose (480 reslizumab-naïve, 571 reslizumab-experienced); median (range) exposure was 319 (36-840) and 343 (36-863) days in reslizumab-naïve and reslizumab-experienced patients, respectively. Continuous exposure, including during the placebo-controlled studies, was ≥12 months for 740 patients and ≥24 months for 249 patients. The most common AEs were worsening of asthma and nasopharyngitis. Serious AEs affected 78 of 1,051 (7%) patients; 18 of 1,051 (2%) discontinued treatment because of AEs; and there were 3 deaths (all non-treatment-related). Fifteen adult patients (15 of 1,023; 1%) had malignancies of diverse tissue types. Reslizumab-experienced patients maintained improved lung function and asthma control; reslizumab-naïve patients had improvements in these measures throughout open-label treatment. Blood eosinophil counts appeared to be returning to baseline after reslizumab discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with moderate-to-severe eosinophilic asthma, intravenous reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg displays favorable long-term safety and sustained long-term efficacy. Initial improvements in lung function and asthma control were maintained for up to 2 years. These findings substantially add to our understanding of the long-term safety and efficacy of anti-IL-5 strategies.

Prevalence of Patients Eligible for Anti-IL-5 Treatment in a Cohort of Adult-Onset Asthma

BACKGROUND

Antibodies against the IL-5 pathway have been developed for the treatment of late-onset eosinophilic corticosteroid-resistant asthma. However, the prevalence of severe asthma and the proportion of patients who could benefit from such treatment among the general population of asthmatics remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of patients eligible to anti-IL-5 treatment and severe asthma in an unselected cohort of adult-onset asthma.

METHODS

Seinäjoki Adult Asthma Study is a 12-year follow-up study of patients with new-onset adult asthma (n = 203). Prevalence was estimated based on information collected at 12-year follow-up visit. Health care use was collected from the whole 12-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

The prevalence of anti-IL-5-treatable patients was 2%, when the following criteria were used: daily use of medium-to-high inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose and long-acting β₂-agonist, ≥2 exacerbations/previous year and blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL or fraction of exhaled nitric oxide ≥ 50 ppb. The prevalence of severe asthma, as defined according to European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society, was 5.9%, and only 1 patient met criteria for both groups. When compared with anti-IL-5 eligible patients, severe asthmatics were more often current smokers at diagnosis, obese, used higher ICS dose, and had higher blood neutrophils 12 years after diagnosis. Both groups differed from nonsevere asthma by a higher number of all and unplanned respiratory-related visits to health care. Severe asthmatics showed the highest number of hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of unselected consecutive patients with adult-onset asthma, 5.9% fulfilled criteria for severe asthma and 2% qualified for anti-IL-5 treatment. Both groups represent a high burden to health care and specifically targeted treatment could lead to lower use of health care at long term.

Interleukin-5 Antagonists Usher in a New Generation of Asthma Therapy

Asthma is the most common chronic respiratory disease in the USA. A subset of patients with asthma have refractory symptoms, persistent eosinophilic inflammation, and recurrent exacerbations despite maximal medical therapy. The monoclonal antibodies targeting the IL-5 pathway are a new class of medications designed to target severe eosinophilic asthma. There are two medications clinically available: mepolizumab and reslizumab, both of which target IL-5. A third medication, benralizumab, is currently under development and targets the IL-5 receptor. Clinical data suggest these medications can reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in patients with peripheral eosinophilia and poorly controlled asthma despite maximal medical therapy. The anti-IL-5 medications are among the first targeted molecular therapies for asthma and will usher in an exciting new era in the treatment of severe asthma.

Reslizumab in patients with inadequately controlled late-onset asthma and elevated blood eosinophils

INTRODUCTION

Asthma with adult onset and elevated blood eosinophils is a difficult-to-treat subgroup. This post hoc analysis evaluated reslizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, in patients with late-onset eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

Data from two 52-week placebo-controlled trials of reslizumab IV 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks in patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled asthma, ≥1 asthma exacerbation within 12 months, and screening blood eosinophils ≥400/μL (NCT01287039/NCT01285323) were stratified by age of asthma onset (<40 or ≥40 years). Annual clinical asthma exacerbation rates, change in lung function, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

273 patients with late-onset asthma (placebo, n = 130; reslizumab, n = 143) and 658 with early-onset asthma (placebo, n = 336; reslizumab, n = 322) were included. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. The interaction between age at onset of asthma and effect of reslizumab on asthma exacerbations was statistically significant (p = 0.0083). Compared with placebo, reslizumab produced a 75% relative reduction in asthma exacerbations in patients with late-onset asthma (rate ratio [RR] 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16, 0.40), substantially larger than the reduction in earlier onset patients (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.76). Similar findings were observed for other measures of asthma, including forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁). The adverse event profile of reslizumab was similar in patients with early- or late-onset asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, reslizumab produced larger reductions in asthma exacerbations and larger improvements in lung function in patients with late versus early-onset asthma.