Prescribing Practices and Barriers of Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis Amongst Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVE(S)

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) are an evolving therapeutic option, but there are limited data on physician experiences in prescribing them. The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of these experiences including prescribing practices, patient factors which guide prescriber decision, and physician and patient-reported issues which might limit cost-effectiveness of these therapies.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to attending otolaryngologists using the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology (CSOHNS) email distribution and eSurvey program. Responses were tabulated for the entire cohort and compared between rhinologists and non-rhinologists where appropriate. Frequencies and proportions were expressed as a percentage of total respondents. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis between groups.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine total survey responses were recorded representing a response rate of 43%. Significantly more rhinologists reported prescribing biologic medications on their own (100% vs. 50%; p < 0.001) and a higher proportion (1 to 10% vs. <1%) of their patients were on biologics compared with non-rhinologists (p = 0.023). Rhinologists were more likely to consider poor response to medical therapies, need for rescue steroids, and comorbid type 2 conditions in their decision to pursue biologics than non-rhinologists, but they also experienced poorer assistance from patient support programs and less availability to medications.

CONCLUSION

Rhinologists are more comfortable with prescribing and managing biologics for CRSwNP compared with non-rhinologist colleagues. Clinicians prescribing biologic medications for CRSwNP should be familiar with guidelines, indications, and potential adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on immunosuppressive medication: association to serum drug levels and disease type

OBJECTIVES

Immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not well characterized. The aims of this study were to explore the serological response associated with IBD, and immunosuppressive medications including serum concentrations of biologics and thiopurine metabolites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, observational study included adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD), and healthy controls. Antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, and serum concentrations of ongoing biologic and immunomodulatory medications were assessed prior to, and 2-5 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Serologic response was defined as anti-Spike antibodies ≥70 AU/ml.

RESULTS

In 958 IBD patients (380 UC, 578 CD) and 323 healthy controls, the median (Q1; Q3) anti-Spike antibody level (AU/ml) was lower in patients (618 (192; 4370)) compared to controls (3355 (896; 7849)) (p < 0.001). The antibody levels were lower in CD (439 (174; 3304)) compared to UC (1088 (251; 5975)) (p < 0.001). No associations were demonstrated between antibody levels and serum drug concentrations for TNF inhibitor (TNFi), vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Patients receiving TNFi + thiopurines with a subtherapeutic 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN) level had higher response rate (93%) compared to patients with 6-TGN within the therapeutic range (53%) (p = 0.003). A diagnosis of UC, mRNA-1273 vaccine, and other treatments than TNFi + thiopurines were associated with humoral response.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CD had an attenuated humoral response to SARS-COV-2 vaccination as compared to patients with UC. The lack of association between serum levels of biologics and serologic response indicates vaccination regardless of proximity to drug administration.

Analysis of Risk Factors for Developing Tuberculosis in Patients Who Received Prophylactic Latent Tuberculosis Infection Treatment with Experience of Biologic Medications

Biologic medications have dramatically improved the treatment outcomes of immunological inflammatory diseases, but their immunosuppressive effects put patients at risk for tuberculosis (TB). We investigated the risk factors for developing TB in patients treated for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) who also had experience of using biologic medications. At Keio University Hospital, we retrospectively investigated patients treated with anti-mycobacterial drugs before or concurrently with biologic medications from January 2012 to August 2020. Patients in the 'follow-on cases group' who had a positive TB screening test after initiating biologic medications and subsequently started LTBI treatment were excluded. We researched and compared the patient characteristics for TB and non-TB patient groups. Of the 146 eligible patients, 5 (3.4%) developed TB. The incidence rate was 600/100000 person-years. There were no significant differences between TB and non-TB patient groups in the history of TB, interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), duration of biologic medication therapy, LTBI treatment periods, concomitant use of calcineurin inhibitors or anti-rheumatic drugs. The percentage of patients who received prednisolone at a dose of ≥15 mg for more than 1 month was higher in those who developed TB than in those who did not (40.0 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.054); however, this difference was not statistically significant. Regular monitoring of TB is necessary for long-term concomitant use of high prednisolone doses during and after the administration of biologic medications.

New biologics for allergic diseases

INTRODUCTION

Allergic conditions such as asthma and atopic dermatitis have a high prevalence but represent a heterogeneous group of diseases despite similar clinical presentation and underlying pathophysiology. A better understanding of the phenotypes and endotypes of these diseases has driven rapid development of biologic medications targeting many steps of the inflammatory pathways. Areas covered: There are 2 major inflammatory pathways that drive allergic diseases: Type-2 (Th-2) inflammation and non-type 2 inflammation. All of the biologic medications currently approved for use, and most of the biologic medications under development for allergic diseases have focused on the Th-2 inflammatory pathway. Biologic targets along this pathway include Anti-Immunoglobulin E (IgE), Anti-Interleukin 5 (IL-5), Anti-IL 4, and Anti-IL 13. Although the most study has been done in the realm of severe asthma, biologic targets for other allergic diseases including atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, eosinophilic esophagitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis are also discussed. Expert commentary: Novel biologic therapies have emerged over the last several years that have revolutionized the management of patients with refractory allergic disease.

Emerging targeted therapies for plaque psoriasis - impact of ixekizumab

BACKGROUND

Recent studies into the pathogenesis of psoriasis have identified the importance of interleukin 17 (IL-17) in disease activity and have thus provided a new target for biologic therapy. Ixekizumab, the most recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anti-IL-17 biologic agent, appears to be a promising medication for patients suffering from moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

We reviewed the results of phase III trials for ixekizumab in order to assess the efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life of this agent in the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Additionally, we compared these results to phase II and phase III trials for other biologic psoriasis medications including the anti-IL-23 agents tildrakizumab and guselkumab, the combined anti-IL-12 and anti-IL-23 agent ustekinumab, and the anti-IL-17 agents brodalumab and secukinumab.

RESULTS

Pooled results from individual studies demonstrate that among the most efficacious dosing regimens of these anti-interleukin therapies, ixekizumab achieves higher Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 rates and similar or higher static Physician Global Assessment 0-1 rates than the other anti-IL-17 and anti-IL-23 agents. The safety profile of ixekizumab is similar to these agents, with nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infection, headache, arthralgia, and injection-site erythema as the most commonly reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Ixekizumab is a highly efficacious, newly FDA-approved treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis that demonstrates a robust clinical response, significant improvement in patient quality of life, and a favorable safety profile.