The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab reduces exacerbations and steroid requirement in allergic asthmatics

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

Uncontrolled severe T2 asthma: Which biological to choose? A biomarker-based approach

In recent years, advances in knowledge of molecular mechanisms involved in asthma have changed uncontrolled severe asthma (USA) treatment, with the appearance of biological treatment. USA is a heterogeneous entity with different endotypes and phenotypes. Nowadays, the biological drugs approved with asthma indication are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. Tezepelumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and, recently, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All these biological drugs have shown their efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing exacerbations, improving asthma control, quality of life, pulmonary function, and withdrawing systemic corticosteroids or at least reducing their daily dose, with some differences between them. Except for mepolizumab and reslizumab, biological drugs have different targets and thus different therapeutic indications should be expected; however, in some patients, more than one drug could be indicated, making the election more difficult. Because there are no direct comparisons between biological drugs, some biomarkers are used to choose between them, but they are not unbeatable. In this article, an algorithm to choose the first biological drug in a specific patient is proposed based on different study results and patient' characteristics.

Therapeutical Targets in Allergic Inflammation

From the discovery of IgE to the in-depth characterization of Th2 cells and ILC2, allergic inflammation has been extensively addressed to find potential therapeutical targets. To date, omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, and dupilumab, an anti-IL-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody, represent two pillars of biologic therapy of allergic inflammation. Their increasing indications and long-term follow-up studies are shaping the many different faces of allergy. At the same time, their limitations are showing the intricate pathogenesis of allergic diseases.

IL-33 Induces an Antiviral Signature in Mast Cells but Enhances Their Permissiveness for Human Rhinovirus Infection

Mast cells (MCs) are classically associated with allergic asthma but their role in antiviral immunity is unclear. Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are a major cause of asthma exacerbations and can infect and replicate within MCs. The primary site of HRV infection is the airway epithelium and MCs localise to this site with increasing asthma severity. The asthma susceptibility gene, IL-33, encodes an epithelial-derived cytokine released following HRV infection but its impact on MC antiviral responses has yet to be determined. In this study we investigated the global response of LAD2 MCs to IL-33 stimulation using RNA sequencing and identified genes involved in antiviral immunity. In spite of this, IL-33 treatment increased permissiveness of MCs to HRV16 infection which, from the RNA-Seq data, we attributed to upregulation of ICAM1. Flow cytometric analysis confirmed an IL-33-dependent increase in ICAM1 surface expression as well as LDLR, the receptors used by major and minor group HRVs for cellular entry. Neutralisation of ICAM1 reduced the IL-33-dependent enhancement in HRV16 replication and release in both LAD2 MCs and cord blood derived MCs. These findings demonstrate that although IL-33 induces an antiviral signature in MCs, it also upregulates the receptors for HRV entry to enhance infection. This highlights the potential for a gene-environment interaction involving IL33 and HRV in MCs to contribute to virus-induced asthma exacerbations.

Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma

In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.

Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Versus Omalizumab in Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps and Asthma: EVEREST Trial Design

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and asthma are chronic type 2 inflammatory diseases that are frequently associated with each other. Dupilumab inhibits the dual signaling pathways of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which are key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in CRSwNP. Omalizumab blocks the action of immunoglobulin E. Head-to-head studies are required to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions. EVEREST (EValuating trEatment RESponses of dupilumab vs omalizumab in Type 2 patients) trial is designed to evaluate whether the efficacy of dupilumab is superior to omalizumab in treating patients with CRSwNP and comorbid asthma (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04998604).

OBJECTIVE

Here, we describe the EVEREST study design to compare the efficacy and safety of dupilumab compared to omalizumab over 24 weeks of treatment in patients with severe CRSwNP and comorbid asthma.

METHODS

EVEREST is a global, phase 4 multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, active-controlled trial. Approximately 422 adult patients with severe CRSwNP, symptoms of nasal congestion and loss of smell, and coexisting asthma will be recruited across 15 countries. The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of dupilumab compared to omalizumab in reducing the nasal polyp size and improving the sense of smell. The key secondary objectives are to evaluate the comparative efficacy in improving CRSwNP symptoms (eg, nasal congestion) and lung function. The safety will be evaluated in terms of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of special interest.

CONCLUSIONS

EVEREST is the first head-to-head trial assessing the comparative efficacy and safety of 2 biologics in patients with severe CRSwNP and comorbid asthma. The study will provide evidence to help optimize treatment plans for patients that suffer from severe CRSwNP and comorbid asthma.

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Documento de consenso de asma grave en adultos. Actualización 2022

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with several clinical variants and often represents a complex disease requiring a specialized and multidisciplinary approach, as well as the use of multiple drugs. The prevalence of severe asthma varies from one country to another, and it is estimated that 50% of these patients present a poor control of their disease. For the best management of the patient, it is necessary a correct diagnosis, an adequate follow-up and undoubtedly to offer the best available treatment, including biologic treatments with monoclonal antibodies. With this objective, this consensus process was born, which began in its first version in 2018, whose goal is to offer the patient the best possible management of their disease in order to minimize their symptomatology. For this 2020 consensus update, a literature review was conducted by the authors. Subsequently, through a two-round interactive Delphi process, a broad panel of asthma experts from SEPAR and the regional pulmonology societies proposed the recommendations and conclusions contained in this document.

Current and Emerging Strategies to Inhibit Type 2 Inflammation in Atopic Dermatitis

Type 2 immunity evolved to combat helminth infections by orchestrating a combined protective response of innate and adaptive immune cells and promotion of parasitic worm destruction or expulsion, wound repair, and barrier function. Aberrant type 2 immune responses are associated with allergic conditions characterized by chronic tissue inflammation, including atopic dermatitis (AD) and asthma. Signature cytokines of type 2 immunity include interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-9, IL-13, and IL-31, mainly secreted from immune cells, as well as IL-25, IL-33, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, mainly secreted from tissue cells, particularly epithelial cells. IL-4 and IL-13 are key players mediating the prototypical type 2 response; IL-4 initiates and promotes differentiation and proliferation of naïve T-helper (Th) cells toward a Th2 cell phenotype, whereas IL-13 has a pleiotropic effect on type 2 inflammation, including, together with IL-4, decreased barrier function. Both cytokines are implicated in B-cell isotype class switching to generate immunoglobulin E, tissue fibrosis, and pruritus. IL-5, a key regulator of eosinophils, is responsible for eosinophil growth, differentiation, survival, and mobilization. In AD, IL-4, IL-13, and IL-31 are associated with sensory nerve sensitization and itch, leading to scratching that further exacerbates inflammation and barrier dysfunction. Various strategies have emerged to suppress type 2 inflammation, including biologics targeting cytokines or their receptors, and Janus kinase inhibitors that block intracellular cytokine signaling pathways. Here we review type 2 inflammation, its role in inflammatory diseases, and current and future therapies targeting type 2 pathways, with a focus on AD. INFOGRAPHIC.

Biologics in severe asthma: the role of real-world evidence from registries

Asthma is one of the most common noncommunicable diseases; in the majority of patients it is well controlled with inhaled bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids, but the management of severe asthma has been a significant challenge historically. The introduction of novel biologic drugs in the past few decades has revolutionised the field, presenting physicians with a variety of biologic drugs with different mechanisms for the treatment of severe asthma.It is of crucial importance to evaluate the effectiveness of these drugs by following their "real-life" effectiveness rather than relying solely on their efficacy, established in carefully designed clinical trials, which therefore do not necessarily match the profile of the real-life patient. Understanding the actual effectiveness of the specific drugs in real-life patients is a crucial part of tailoring the right drugs to the right patients. Registries serve as an important tool in obtaining real-life evidence, since they are in effect observational studies, following the entire patient population.

Biologics in severe asthma: Outcomes in clinical trials-Similarities and differences

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is a heterogenous disease characterized by multiple phenotypes. Targeted biologic therapies have revolutionarily changed the management of severe asthma by affecting various clinical outcomes, mainly by reducing exacerbations and the use of maintenance corticosteroids, but also by improving lung function and patient quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of different biologics in improving the above outcomes. However, no head-to-head studies exist to compare their efficacy and many patients with severe asthma are eligible for more than one biologic agent. In this review, we present the effect of various biologics in the various outcomes as shown in randomized controlled trials and discuss their similarities and differences.

EXPERT OPINION

Both the initial choice of a biologic as well as the option of switching to another give the clinician an interesting but also difficult decision when choosing a biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma. This decision is mainly based on the individual characteristics of the patient, especially rate of exacerbations and use of systemic corticosteroids, but is also influenced by the presence of comorbidities and lung function impairment. No safety concerns have been raised around the use of these biologics.

Impact of body mass index on omalizumab response in adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of asthma treatment, including biologics, may be different in patients with higher body mass index (BMI).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate response to omalizumab (dosed by serum immunoglobulin E level and weight) by BMI category.

METHODS

Pooled data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma were analyzed by BMI category (<25 kg/m² [normal or underweight], n = 397; 25 to <30 kg/m² [overweight], n = 330; ≥ 30 kg/m² [obese], n = 268). Placebo-adjusted exacerbation rate reductions were evaluated by Poisson regression modeling. Changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) dose, Total Asthma Symptom Score, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire were evaluated by analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Greater placebo-adjusted exacerbation rate reductions (95% confidence interval) were observed with increasing BMI (normal or underweight, -37.4% [-69.0% to 26.8%]; overweight, -52.7% [-78.4% to 3.7%]; obese, -71.9% [-86.9% to -39.5%]). There were no differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 second improvement between BMI categories at week 16 (normal or underweight, 76.2 [5.3-147.1] mL; overweight, 98.1 [13.9-182.4] mL; obese, 69.1 [-18.9 to 157.2] mL). No differences in BDP dose reduction (µg) were noted between BMI categories (normal or underweight, 23.0 [15.7-30.3]; overweight, 22.5 [13.5-31.5]; obese, 16.6 [5.8-27.3]). Fewer patients in the higher BMI categories eliminated BDP use. There were trends for smaller improvements with higher BMI in Total Asthma Symptom Score (normal/underweight, -0.52 [-0.82 to -0.22]; overweight, -0.50 [-0.80 to -0.20]; obese, -0.39 [-0.77 to 0.00]) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (normal or underweight, 0.34 [0.16-0.52]; overweight, 0.34 [0.13-0.55]; obese, 0.15 [-0.08 to 0.39]).

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab provides benefit to patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, regardless of BMI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Studies 008/009 were conducted before clinical trial registration was required, and therefore clinical trial registration numbers are not available.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

Asthma is a disease with high incidence and prevalence, and its severe form accounts for approximately 10% of asthmatics. Over the last decade, the increasing knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the disease allowed the development of biological drugs capable of sufficiently controlling symptoms and reducing the use of systemic steroids. The best-known mechanisms are those pertaining to type 2 inflammation, for which drugs were developed and studied. Those biological treatments affect crucial points of bronchial inflammation. Among the mechanisms explored, there were IgE (Omalizumab), interleukin 5 (Mepolizumab and Reslizumab), interleukin 5 receptor alpha (Benralizumab) and interleukin 4/13 receptor (Dupilumab). Under investigation and expected to be soon commercialized is the monoclonal antibody blocking the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (Tezepelumab). Seemingly under study and promising, are anti-interleukin-33 (itepekimab) and anti-suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 (astegolimab). With this study, we want to provide an overview of these drugs, paying particular attention to their mechanism of action, the main endpoints reached in clinical trials, the main results obtained in real life and some unclear points regarding their usage.

Allergic and eosinophilic asthma in the era of biomarkers and biologics: similarities, differences and misconceptions

OBJECTIVE

Severe asthma is associated with substantial personal and economic burden; maintaining disease control is the key management goal. Increased understanding of asthma heterogeneity and development of type 2 (T2)-targeting biologics has substantially advanced disease management and outcomes; however, despite both being driven by T2 inflammation, allergic and eosinophilic asthma have different treatment recommendations. We sought to better understand the similarities and differences between allergic and eosinophilic asthma and highlight where misconceptions may arise.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles, pivotal trials, post hoc analyses, and asthma clinical guidelines sourced from PubMed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Sources reporting allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications, disease mechanisms, and biomarkers associated with treatment response.

RESULTS

This review highlights that severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma are both driven by T2 inflammation with eosinophils playing a cardinal role. Despite this overlap, treatment recommendations differ based on asthma classification. T2 cytokine gene expression is a reasonably well-established research tool, but not a well-established biomarker in clinical practice, unlike blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and immunoglobulin E; the clinical relevance of immunoglobulin E as a predictive biomarker remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

Asthma classifications that can be easily characterized at patient level to ensure accurate diagnosis, predict disease trajectory, and treatment response are required. The current dichotomy of allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications is likely too simplistic, given the similar eosinophil-mediated disease pathophysiology in both classifications. Our results provide future directions to guide clinically meaningful interpretation of asthma endophenotypes, which may improve understanding of severe asthma characterization and aid future advances in defining responders more precisely with personalized medicine approaches.

A pragmatic guide to choosing biologic therapies in severe asthma

There are now several monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies (“biologics”) available to treat severe asthma. Omalizumab is an anti-IgE mAb and is licensed in severe allergic asthma. Current evidence suggests it may decrease exacerbations by augmenting deficient antiviral immune responses in asthma. Like all other biologics, clinical efficacy is greatest in those with elevated T2 biomarkers. Three biologics target the interleukin (IL)-5–eosinophil pathway, including mepolizumab and reslizumab that target IL-5 itself, and benralizumab that targets the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R-α). These drugs all reduce the exacerbation rate in those with raised blood eosinophil counts. Mepolizumab and benralizumab have also demonstrated steroid-sparing efficacy. Reslizumab is the only biologic that is given intravenously rather than by the subcutaneous route. Dupilumab targets the IL-4 receptor and like mepolizumab and benralizumab is effective at reducing exacerbation rate as well as oral corticosteroid requirements. It is also effective for the treatment of nasal polyposis and atopic dermatitis. Tezepelumab is an anti-TSLP (thymic stromal lymphopoietin) mAb that has recently completed phase 3 trials demonstrating significant reductions in exacerbation rate even at lower T2 biomarker thresholds.

Many patients with severe asthma qualify for more than one biologic. To date, there are no head-to-head trials to aid physicians in this choice. However, post-hoc analyses have identified certain clinical characteristics that are associated with superior responses to some therapies. The presence of allergic and/or eosinophilic comorbidities, such as atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, that may additionally benefit by the choice of biologic should also be taken into consideration, as should patient preferences which may include dosing frequency. To date, all biologics have been shown to have excellent safety profiles.

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.

Biologics in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Three-Year Follow-Up in a SANI Single Center

Introduction: Biologic drugs have dramatically improved severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of biological therapy in SEA in a real-life setting and to identify the predictors for switching to another biological drug in patients with poor asthma control. The outcomes for efficacy were decreased annual exacerbations (AE) and improved asthma control test (ACT). Methods: In 90 SEA patients being treated with a biological drug, clinical examination, ACT, blood eosinophils count and spirometry were assessed before (T0) and after 6 (T1), 12 (T2), 24 (T3) and 36 (T4) months from the start of biological therapy. Patients were considered responders (R) or non-responders (NR) to biologics depending on whether or not they had less than two AE and a 20% increase in the ACT after 12 months of treatment. Results: 75% of the patients were R, 25% NR. In R patients, biological therapy add-on was followed by significant improvement in AE and ACT throughout the whole follow-up period. The percentage of patients on oral corticosteroids (OCS) dropped from 40% to 12%. By contrast, the NR patients were shifted to another biological drug after 12 months of therapy, as they still had high AE and nearly unchanged ACT; 40% of them still needed OCS treatment. The predictors of switching to another biological drug were three or more AE, ACT below 17, nasal polyposis and former smoking (p < 0.05). In NR, the shift to another biological drug was followed by a significant decrease in AE and an increase in the ACT. Discussion: This real-life study confirms the long-term efficacy of biologics in most SEA patients and indicates that even in non-responders to a first biological drug, it is worth trying a second one. It is hoped that the availability of additional biologics with different targets will help improve the personalization of SEA therapy.

The use of biologics in personalized asthma care

INTRODUCTION

The role of biologic treatments in severe asthma continues to expand, with five agents now approved. Selection of biologic treatment has become increasingly complex in the setting of overlapping indications and in the absence of head-to-head trials. Long-term safety data are still limited for more recently approved agents.

AREAS COVERED

We review the evidence supporting the choice of biologic and predicting treatment response utilizing existing widely available biomarkers. In addition, we provide a digest of the long-term safety data currently available for agents approved since 2015. Data sources were identified by using PubMed in 2021.

EXPERT OPINION

We generally favor omalizumab in the first instance for those severe asthma patients also eligible for other biologics, due to the greater long-term safety data available for this agent. Clinical characteristics predicting response, treatment priorities, and comorbidities must also be considered.

Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for severe asthma: A systematic review

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases characterized by sex disparities. Gender bias is a well-documented issue detected in the design of published clinical trials (CTs). International guidelines encourage researchers to analyze clinical data by sex, gender, or both where appropriate. The objective of this work was to evaluate gender bias in the published CTs of biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma. A systematic review of randomized controlled CTs of the biological agents (omalizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, mepolizumab or dupilumab) for the treatment of severe asthma was conducted. The literature search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE without language restrictions. This study followed the corresponding international recommendations. We identified a total of 426 articles, of which 37 were finally included. Women represented 60.4% of patients included. The mean percentage of women in these trials was 59.9%, ranged from 40.8% to 76.7%. The separate analysis by sex of the main variable was only performed in 5 of the 37 publications included, and none of the trials analyzed secondary variables by sex. Only 1 of the articles discussed the results separately by sex. No study included the concept of gender in the text or analyzed the results separately by gender. The proportion of women included in CTs was higher compared to publications of other disciplines, where women were under-represented. The analysis of the main and secondary variables by sex or gender, even the discussion separately by sex, was insufficient. This gives rise to potential gender bias in these CTs.

The Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies on Airway Smooth Muscle Contractility in Asthma: A Systematic Review

Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) represents a central pathophysiological hallmark of asthma, with airway smooth muscle (ASM) being the effector tissue implicated in the onset of AHR. ASM also exerts pro-inflammatory and immunomodulatory actions, by secreting a wide range of cytokines and chemokines. In asthma pathogenesis, the overexpression of several type 2 inflammatory mediators including IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP has been associated with ASM hyperreactivity, all of which can be targeted by humanized monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically assess evidence across the literature on mAbs for the treatment of asthma with respect to their impact on the ASM contractile tone. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab were found to be effective in modulating the contractility of the ASM and preventing the AHR, but no available studies concerning the impact of reslizumab on the ASM were identified from the literature search. Omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab can directly modulate the ASM in asthma, by specifically blocking the interaction between IgE, IL-4, and TSLP, and their receptors are located on the surface of ASM cells. Conversely, mepolizumab and benralizumab have prevalently indirect impacts against AHR by targeting eosinophils and other immunomodulatory effector cells promoting inflammatory processes. AHR has been suggested as the main treatable trait towards precision medicine in patients suffering from eosinophilic asthma, therefore, well-designed head-to-head trials are needed to compare the efficacy of those mAbs that directly target ASM contractility specifically against the AHR in severe asthma, namely omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab.

Inflammation in Asthma Pathogenesis: Role of T cells, Macrophages, Epithelial Cells and Type 2 Inflammation

Asthma is a chronic disease with abnormal inflammatory and immunological responses. The disease initiated by antigens in subjects with genetic susceptibility. However, environmental factors play a role in the initiation and exacerbation of asthma attack. Asthma is T helper 2 (Th2)-cell-mediated disease. Recent studies indicated that asthma is not a single disease entity, but it is with multiple phenotypes and endotypes. The pathophysiological changes in asthma included a series of subsequent continuous vicious circle of cellular activation contributed to induction of chemokines and cytokines that potentiate inflammation. The heterogeneity of asthma influenced the treatment response. The asthma pathogenesis driven by varied set of cells such as eosinophils, basophils, neutrophils, mast cells, macrophages, epithelial cells and T cells. In this review the role of T cells, macrophage, and epithelial cells are discussed.

Indirect comparison of efficacy of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab for severe type 2 asthma

This indirect comparison of dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab for patients with severe type 2 asthma fulfilling start-up criteria for more than one drug shows no significant efficacy differences https://bit.ly/3pK9Nf9.

Asthma biologics: Real-world effectiveness, impact of switching biologics, and predictors of response

BACKGROUND

Confirmation of effectiveness of asthma biologics in the real world is desirable because patient characteristics and experiences may differ from those included in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate real-world effectiveness of asthma biologics and identify predictors of response.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in patients with severe asthma receiving biologics. The primary outcome was change in clinically significant exacerbations at 12 months after starting biologic therapy, compared with 12 months before. Secondary outcomes were change in severe exacerbations, maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and asthma control test scores. Subgroup analyses were performed for subjects who were biologic naive or not. A stepwise logistic regression model was performed to compare responders to nonresponders.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients were included. Biologic therapy was associated with a 59% reduction in clinically significant exacerbations (P < .001), 65% reduction in severe exacerbations (P < .001), and 54% reduction in maintenance OCS dose (P = .001) in the 12 months after starting therapy. Biologics also resulted in improvement in prebronchodilator FEV1 (P = .002) and Asthma Control Test score (P < .001). Subjects who were previously on another biologic also experienced significant improvements in exacerbation frequency, maintenance OCS dose, and asthma control. Responders were more likely to be nonsmokers and have higher baseline FEV1, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and eosinophil counts greater than 500 cells/μL.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, biologic therapy in asthma is effective in improving exacerbations, asthma control, and lung function. Patients who have a suboptimal response to 1 biologic can still benefit from treatment with a different biologic.

Novel Approaches in the Inhibition of IgE-Induced Mast Cell Reactivity in Food Allergy

Allergy is an IgE-dependent type-I hypersensitivity reaction that can lead to life-threatening systemic symptoms such as anaphylaxis. In the pathogenesis of the allergic response, the common upstream event is the binding of allergens to specific IgE, inducing cross-linking of the high-affinity FcεRI on mast cells, triggering cellular degranulation and the release of histamine, proteases, lipids mediators, cytokines and chemokines with inflammatory activity. A number of novel therapeutic options to curb mast cell activation are in the pipeline for the treatment of severe allergies. In addition to anti-IgE therapy and allergen-specific immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies targeted against several key Th2/alarmin cytokines (i.e. IL-4Rα, IL-33, TSLP), active modification of allergen-specific IgE (i.e. inhibitory compounds, monoclonal antibodies, de-sialylation), engagement of inhibitory receptors on mast cells and allergen-specific adjuvant vaccines, are new promising options to inhibit the uncontrolled release of mast cell mediators upon allergen exposure. In this review, we critically discuss the novel approaches targeting mast cells limiting allergic responses and the immunological mechanisms involved, with special interest on food allergy treatment.

Clinical efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

MP-AzeFlu is a novel option for therapy of allergic rhinitis (AR). The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, compared to placebo and azelastine monotherapy.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of using MP-AzeFlu nasal spray on July 26, 2019. In these studies, we selected patients with clinical symptom scores. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed by I².

RESULTS

Among the 336 citations retrieved, 6 articles with over 6000 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis revealed that MP-AzeFlu was superior to placebo ( - 2.43 [95%CI,  - 2.73 to  - 2.14], P < 0.00001) and azelastine ( - 1.27 [95% CI,  - 1.57 to  - 0.97], P < 0.00001) in reflective total nasal symptom score. In the MP-AzeFlu group, the instantaneous total nasal symptom score ( - 2.56 [95% CI,  - 3.02 to  - 2.10], P < 0.00001) and the reflective total ocular symptom score ( - 1.22 [95% CI,  - 1.57 to  - 0.87], P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared to the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

MP-AzeFlu is as safe and mild as placebo and azelastine, which also is associated with symptom relief and the improvement of quality of life in AR patients. MP-AzeFlu can provide better clinical benefits than two currently available first-line intranasal therapies. It is an ideal therapy for AR patients.

Omalizumab in Asthma with Fixed Airway Obstruction: Post Hoc Analysis of EXTRA

BACKGROUND

Although asthma is typically characterized by bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR), fixed airflow obstruction (FAO) occurs in ∼50% of patients with severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

Do FAO/BDR associate with efficacy of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IgE?

METHODS

In EXTRA, patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β₂-agonists were randomized to omalizumab (n = 427) or placebo (n = 423) for 48 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, high/low BDR were defined as ≥12%/<12% increases in baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) after bronchodilator administration, respectively. FAO presence (+)/absence (-) were defined as baseline postbronchodilator FEV₁/forced vital capacity <70%/≥70%, respectively. Poisson regression/analysis of covariance models were used to estimate exacerbation relative rate reductions (RRRs)/least-squares mean changes in FEV₁, respectively.

RESULTS

In patients with high BDR, omalizumab reduced exacerbations more than placebo over the 48-week treatment period regardless of FAO status (RRR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: FAO+, 59.8% [17.7-80.4%]; FAO-, 44.3% [16.6-62.8%]). Omalizumab improved FEV₁ compared with placebo in the FAO-, high BDR subgroup (FEV₁ change from baseline [95% CI] for omalizumab vs placebo, 0.065 L [-0.071 to 0.201 L] to 0.236 L [0.112-0.359 L]) across 48 weeks. This was not observed in patients with low BDR, irrespective of FAO.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab was more efficacious than placebo at reducing exacerbations in patients with high, but not low, BDR, regardless of the presence of FAO. Lung function improvement primarily occurred in FAO-, high BDR patients, suggesting that asthma with low BDR may represent a difficult-to-treat phenotype.

Biological therapy for severe asthma

Around 5-10% of the total asthmatic population suffer from severe or uncontrolled asthma, which is associated with increased mortality and hospitalization, increased health care burden and worse quality of life. In the last few years, new drugs have been launched and several asthma phenotypes according to definite biomarkers have been identified. In particular, therapy with biologics has revolutionized the management and the treatment of severe asthma, showing high therapeutic efficacy associated with significant clinical benefits. To date, four types of biologics are licensed for severe asthma, i.e. omalizumab (anti-immunoglobulin E) antibody, mepolizumab and reslizumab (anti-interleukin [IL]-5antibody), benralizumab (anti-IL-5 receptor a antibody) and dupilumab (anti-IL-4 receptor alpha antibody). The aim of this article was to review the biologic therapies currently available for the treatment of severe asthma, in order to help physicians to choose the most suitable biologic agent for their asthmatic patients.

Acceptance and Results of Therapy with Omalizumab in Real world Kerala setting - Reports from the ARTWORK study, Kerala, South India

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of effective medications, only a minority of asthma patients achieve guideline defined asthma control. Treatment success depends on patient concurrence to the prescribed drug and adherence to treatment. It is therefore crucial to identify the patient preferences as well as attitudes towards asthma medications. Omalizumab is recommended as a preferred option in step five of asthma therapy. There have been few studies to address patient perspectives on omalizumab therapy in India.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Patients with inadequate asthma control were considered for the study. Systematic evaluation was done to identify and correct modifiable factors that can worsen asthma control. Patients with persisting poor asthma control who were deemed suitable to receive this agent were evaluated with their attitudes towards acceptance or refusal and the reasons for opting out were noted. The patients who received omalizumab were followed up to determine the results of treatment and duration of adherence to therapy.

RESULTS

35 patients out of 51 patients chose to avoid this drug. The reasons for opting out included erroneous perception of optimal asthma control, cost of therapy, and concern about adverse effects. Patients took omalizumab for a median duration of 6 months. Improved asthma control and decreased frequency of exacerbation was noted in all patients which persisted during the six month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of patients needing step five therapy opt out of omalizumab. Cost of drug, duration of therapy and erroneous perception of good asthma control account for refusing treatment. Omalizumab affords excellent clinical benefits to patients who receive it, and the benefits extend beyond the duration of therapy.

Use of Health Related Quality of Life in Clinical Trials for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Asthma Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is an outcome important to patients with severe asthma and can provide clinicians with additional insight into the benefits of treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the use and reporting of HRQoL questionnaires within randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics, fevipiprant and bronchial thermoplasty.

METHODS

We followed the guidelines on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Of the 2380 retrieved articles, 52 studies were identified for inclusion.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent included an asthma HRQoL questionnaire. It was a secondary outcome in the majority of cases (73%). The proportion of studies including an asthma HRQoL questionnaire did not change significantly over a 20-year period. While the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was used in 45% of studies, 55% used a variety of 4 questionnaires. Most (70%) of the studies that included a HRQoL questionnaire did not report its subscale scores. Approximately half (52%) of studies that used HRQoL reported this in the abstract of the paper. A higher proportion of studies used an asthma control questionnaire compared to a HRQoL questionnaire (71% vs 63%).

CONCLUSION

In order to increase the use of asthma HRQoL questionnaires in RCTs of severe asthma treatments, the drivers and barriers to their use must first be understood. At present, the patients' perspective is underrepresented in RCTs of biologics, fevipiprant and bronchial thermoplasty for severe asthma.

Prevention and Treatment of Asthma Exacerbations in Adults

Asthma exacerbations are major contributors to disease morbidity in patients of all ages. To develop strategies that reduce the disease burden from exacerbations, it is helpful to review current concepts about the risk factors for asthma attacks and current approaches for prevention and treatment. Multiple factors contribute as risks and to the development of asthma exacerbations, including allergic and infectious processes. Viral respiratory infections, primarily from rhinoviruses, are the dominant exacerbating cause for most asthma patients. Allergic sensitization and allergen exposure contribute directly and enhance susceptibility for respiratory viral infections. Respiratory viruses infect airway epithelium to promote underlying type 2 inflammation with eosinophils, the predominant cellular component of increased inflammation. Deficiencies of antiviral interferon responses and generation have been identified that increase susceptibility to viral infections in asthma. Exacerbation treatment focuses on reducing airflow obstruction and suppressing inflammation, followed by improving long-term asthma control. Increasing concern exists regarding the side effects associated with frequent systemic corticosteroid use. A major advance has been the selective use of biologics to prevent exacerbations, primarily in patients with existing type 2 inflammation. Future research to prevent exacerbations is being directed toward antiviral activity and a more encompassing regulation of underlying airway inflammation.

Novel pharmacological therapies for the treatment of bronchial asthma

Asthma has long been recognised as a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways, often in response to inhaled allergens prompting inappropriate activation of the immune response. involving a range of cells including mast cells, Th2 lymphocytes and eosinophils and a wide range of inflammatory mediators. First-line therapy for treatment of persistent asthma involves the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with inhaled β2-agonists enabling both the control of the underlying airways inflammation and a reduction of airway hyperresponsiveness. However, many patients remain symptomatic despite high-dose therapy. There is therefore a continued unmet clinical need to develop specifically new anti-inflammatory therapies for patients with asthma, either as an add-on therapy to ICS or as replacement monotherapies. The success of fixed dose combination inhalers containing both a bronchodilator and an anti-inflammatory drug has also led to the development of "bifunctional" drugs which are molecules specifically designed to have two distinct pharmacological actions based on distinct pharmacophores. In this review we will discuss these different pharmacological approaches under development for the treatment of bronchial asthma and the available pre-clinical and clinical data.

Tuning IgE: IgE-Associating Molecules and Their Effects on IgE-Dependent Mast Cell Reactions

The recent emergence of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) drugs and their candidates for humans has endorsed the significance of IgE-dependent pathways in allergic disorders. IgE is distributed locally in the tissues or systemically to confer a sensory mechanism in a domain of adaptive immunity to the otherwise innate type of effector cells, namely, mast cells and basophils. Bound on the high-affinity IgE receptor FcεRI, IgE enables fast memory responses against revisiting threats of venoms, parasites, and bacteria. However, the dysregulation of IgE-dependent reactions leads to potentially life-threatening allergic diseases, such as asthma and anaphylaxis. Therefore, reactivity of the IgE sensor is fine-tuned by various IgE-associating molecules. In this review, we discuss the mechanistic basis for how IgE-dependent mast cell activation is regulated by the IgE-associating molecules, including the newly developed therapeutic candidates.

Oral Corticosteroids Dependence and Biologic Drugs in Severe Asthma: Myths or Facts? A Systematic Review of Real-World Evidence

Airway inflammation represents an important characteristic in asthma, modulating airflow limitation and symptom control, and triggering the risk of asthma exacerbation. Thus, although corticosteroids represent the cornerstone for the treatment of asthma, severe patients may be dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Fortunately, the current humanised monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and reslizumab have been proven to induce an OCS-sparing effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus overcoming the problem of OCS dependence in severe asthma. Nevertheless, a large discrepancy has been recognized between selected patients enrolled in RCTs and non-selected asthmatic populations in real-world settings. It is not possible to exclude that the OCS-sparing effect of mAbs resulting from the RCTs could be different than the real effect resulting in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and correlation analysis to assess whether mAbs are effective in eliciting an OCS-sparing effect and overcoming the OCS dependence in severe asthmatic patients in real-world settings. Overall, real-world studies support the evidence that OCS dependence is a real condition that, however, can be found only in a small number of really severe asthmatic patients. In most patients, the dependence on OCS can be related to modifying factors that, when adequately modulated, may lead to a significant reduction or suspension of OCS maintenance. Conversely, in severe asthmatics in whom OCS resistance is proved by a high daily dose intake, mAbs allow reversion of the OCS dependence, leading to the suspension of OCS therapy in most patients or >50% reduction in the daily OCS dose.

Real-life long-term safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in Japanese pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma: A post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is approved as add-on therapy for pediatric asthma since 2013 in Japan, however, its data in clinical practice is limited. This post-marketing surveillance aimed to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in Japanese pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma in real-life setting.

METHODS

This 104-week, multicenter surveillance was conducted from September 2013 to May 2019 by central registration method. Patients with severe allergic asthma aged ≥6 and < 15 years at initiation of treatment who were first-time omalizumab users were included. The primary endpoints included incidence of adverse drug reactions and physician's Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The secondary endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events, adverse events and adverse drug reactions of special interest and asthma exacerbation-related events.

RESULTS

Of the 128 patients enrolled, 127 completed the surveillance and were included for safety and effectiveness analysis. Thirteen patients experienced 20 adverse drug reactions with an incidence rate of 10.2%. The most frequent adverse drug reactions were pyrexia (2.4%) and urticaria (1.6%). In total, adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in 60 (47.2%) and 30 patients (23.6%) respectively. Two patients experienced anaphylactic reaction and 1 patient experienced type 1 hypersensitivity. 77.2% had an effective response to omalizumab according to GETE at final assessment, and frequency of all asthma exacerbation-related events decreased in post-treatment versus pre-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term omalizumab treatment showed no new safety signals in pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma. The observed safety and effectiveness profile was consistent with previous studies.

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.

Anti-IgE therapy inhibits chemotaxis, proliferation and transformation of circulating fibrocytes in patients with severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Circulating fibrocytes act as precursors of myofibroblasts, contribute to airway remodelling in chronic asthma and migrate to injured tissues by expressing CXCR4 and CCR7. Anti-IgE therapy improves severe allergic asthma (SAA) control and airway remodelling in T2-high SAA. The effects of anti-IgE therapy on fibrocyte activities were investigated in this study.

METHODS

The expression of CCR7, CXCR4, ST2 and α-SMA (α-smooth muscle actin) in both circulating and cultured fibrocytes from all patients with asthma was measured, and was repeated after omalizumab treatment in SAA. Fibrocytes recruitment, proliferation and transformation were also measured in response to anti-IgE therapy.

RESULTS

Omalizumab effectively improved asthma control and pulmonary function in T2-high SAA, associated with a decline in serum levels of IL-33 and IL-13. Omalizumab down-regulates CXCR4 and CCR7 expression of fibrocytes, which could suppress fibrocyte recruitment into the lungs. Omalizumab also suppressed the increased number of fibrocytes and α-SMA⁺ fibrocytes within the cultured non-adherent non-T (NANT) cells after 3-7 days of culture. The decrease in serum levels of IL-33 by omalizumab contributed to the effectiveness in inhibiting fibrocyte recruitment, proliferation and myofibroblast transformation through IL-33/ST2 axis. The elevated IL-13 expression in SAA patients potentiated the effects of IL-33 by increasing ST2 expression.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab reduced the number of circulating fibrocytes, cell and number of fibrocytes as well as α-SMA⁺ fibrocytes after 3-7 days of culture in SAA patients. IL-33 and IL-13 may be implicated in the effectiveness of omalizumab in inhibiting fibrocyte activation contributing partly to the clinical benefits in reducing lamina propria and basement membrane thickening.

Direct effects of mast cell proteases, tryptase and chymase, on bronchial epithelial integrity proteins and anti-viral responses

BACKGROUND

Mast cells (MCs) are known to contribute to both acute and chronic inflammation. Bronchial epithelial cells are the first line of defence against pathogens and a deficient anti-viral response has been suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of asthma exacerbations. However, effects of MC mediators on bronchial epithelial immune response have been less studied. The aim of this study is to investigate the direct effects of stimulation with MC proteases, tryptase and chymase, on inflammatory and anti-viral responses in human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs).

METHOD

Cultured BEAS-2b cells and primary HBECs from 3 asthmatic patients were stimulated with tryptase or chymase (0.1 to 0.5 μg/ml) for 1, 3, 6 and 24 h. To study the effects of MC mediators on the anti-viral response, cells were stimulated with 10 μg/ml of viral mimic Poly (I:C) for 3 and 24 h following pre-treatment with 0.5 μg/ml tryptase or chymase for 3 h. Samples were analysed for changes in pro-inflammatory and anti-viral mediators and receptors using RT-qPCR, western blot and Luminex.

RESULTS

Tryptase and chymase induced release of the alarmin ATP and pro-inflammatory mediators IL-8, IL-6, IL-22 and MCP-1 from HBECs. Moreover, tryptase and chymase decreased the expression of E-cadherin and zonula occludens-1 expression from HBECs. Pre-treatment of HBECs with tryptase and chymase further increased Poly (I:C) induced IL-8 release at 3 h. Furthermore, tryptase significantly reduced type-I and III interferons (IFNs) and pattern recognition receptor (PRR) expression in HBECs. Tryptase impaired Poly (I:C) induced IFN and PRR expression which was restored by treatment of a serine protease inhibitor. Similar effects of tryptase on inflammation and anti-viral responses were also confirmed in primary HBECs from asthmatic patients.

CONCLUSION

MC localization within the epithelium and the release of their proteases may play a critical role in asthma pathology by provoking pro-inflammatory and alarmin responses and downregulating IFNs. Furthermore, MC proteases induce downregulation of epithelial junction proteins which may lead to barrier dysfunction. In summary, our data suggests that mast cells may contribute towards impaired anti-viral epithelial responses during asthma exacerbations mediated by the protease activity of tryptase.

Evolution of our view on the IgE molecule role in bronchial asthma and the clinical effect of its modulation by omalizumab: Where do we stand today?

Bronchial asthma is a heterogeneous disease whose definition and treatment are based on evidence of variable airway obstruction and airway inflammation. Despite the enormous increase in the amount of information on the pathogenesis of this disease, diagnosis is still an unresolved problem, as we still lack sensitive and specific biomarkers. On the other hand, at the turn of the 20th and 21st century, there was a rapid development of therapeutic modalities based on the principle of biological therapy. The first authorized drug matching these characteristics was omalizumab – a monoclonal antibody directed against immunoglobulin E (IgE). It has been used for the treatment of severe forms of bronchial asthma for more than 15 years, which is a sufficient time to acquire ways of its effective use and to assess whether the treatment with omalizumab has met our expectations. However, we continue to discover new and surprising facts about the effects of omalizumab treatment which leads to widening of therapeutic indications. In this work, a basic overview of the very complex role of the IgE molecule in the organism (with a special emphasis on allergic asthma) is discussed, and the most important practical and clinical consequences resulting from its modulation by targeted therapy with omalizumab are summarized.

Biologicals for severe asthma: what we can learn from real-life experiences?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma is a serious disease affecting about 5-10% of asthmatic patients. Often patients with this kind of asthma requires periodical courses or daily intake of oral corticosteroids, to control symptoms. In the last few years several biological drugs have been developed with the aim to decrease exacerbations and reduce or suspend intake of systemic steroids in severe asthmatic patients. Clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy and the safety of biological antibodies in asthma, but it is already known that randomized controlled trials alone are not sufficient to provide complete information on a drug.

RECENT FINDINGS

After marketing of monoclonal antibodies has been developed several real-life studies with the aim to observe how drugs, tested only on trial patients, are able to provide adequate effectiveness even on 'real' patients; indeed, it is well known that the latter differ in some characteristics from the patients of the trials.

SUMMARY

The results of this analysis confirm the good efficacy of the biologics similarly in real-life patients, also ensuring a promising safety even in periods of observation longer than those of the randomized controlled trials.

Treatment for Severe Asthma in Children: What About Biologics?

Asthma is the most common pulmonary disease in children age 5 to 17 years. Asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation and heterogeneous clinical phenotypes. A small proportion of patients (approximately 5% to 10%) diagnosed with severe asthma are unable to achieve asthma control even with intensive therapy. Severe asthma in children is characterized by poor asthma control, uncontrolled symptoms, poor quality of life, disrupted school-related activities and increased risk of exacerbations, health care use, and morbidities due to asthma. Several new biologic agents targeting the mediators of asthma inflammation that are now approved are likely to improve asthma outcomes in children with severe asthma. This article outlines the various biologic agents currently approved for use in children. [Pediatr Ann. 2021;50(5):e206-e213.].

Clinical effects and immune modulation of biologics in asthma

Asthma is considered a syndrome composed of heterogeneous disorders involving complex chronic airway inflammation. Patients with severe asthma, prolonged symptoms, and frequent asthma exacerbations, despite high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, may benefit from treatment with biologics. Four types of biologics are available for severe asthma, including an anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody (omalizumab), anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody (mepolizumab and reslizumab), anti-IL-5 receptor α antibody (benralizumab), and anti-IL-4 receptor α antibody (dupilumab). Biologics for patients with severe asthma demonstrate high therapeutic efficacy and provide significant clinical benefits, including the prevention of asthma exacerbations, alleviation of symptoms, improvement in the quality of life and respiratory function, and reduction in frequencies of hospitalization and emergency outpatient visits. This review provides an overview of the modulation of immunological features by each of the four established biologics in patients with severe allergic asthma. Given the extensive immunomodulatory effects of biologics, further analyses of their precise effects on the human immune system are warranted.

Omalizumab response in patients with asthma by number and type of allergen

BACKGROUND

The anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, improves asthma control and reduces exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, it has been suggested that omalizumab should be reserved for highly allergic patients with multiple allergen sensitivities or perennial-only sensitivities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine impact of allergy burden, including number and type of allergen sensitivities, on omalizumab response in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated a subset of omalizumab-treated patients from the Prospective Observational Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab (NCT01922037) who had completed 13 allergen assessments (N=478). Patients were classified by allergen burden (nonsensitized, 1, 2-4, or ≥5 allergen sensitivities) and type of allergen (nonsensitized, seasonal, perennial, or both). Outcome measures included exacerbation rate vs previous year and improvements in lung function and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ).

RESULTS

Comparable adjusted exacerbation rates were observed after omalizumab initiation, regardless of number or type of allergen sensitizations (0.56-0.85/y). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline at months 6 (0.03-0.09 L) and 12 (-0.08 to 0.08 L) were also similar across subgroups. Least squares mean change in AQLQ from baseline at months 6 (1.0-1.2) and 12 (1.1-1.4) was comparable across patient subgroups, and similar percentages of patients achieved AQLQ minimal clinically important difference of at least a 0.5-point improvement at month 6 (71%-75%), which was maintained or improved to month 12 (71%-89%). In all analyses, 95% confidence intervals overlapped.

CONCLUSION

Overall findings suggest that patients with allergic asthma achieved comparable improvements across distinct outcome measures after omalizumab therapy in a real-world setting, regardless of number and type of allergen sensitizations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01922037.

Severe Adult Asthmas: Integrating Clinical Features, Biology, and Therapeutics to Improve Outcomes

Evaluation and effective management of asthma, and in particular severe asthma, remains at the core of pulmonary practice. Over the last 20-30 years, there has been increasing appreciation that "severe asthma" encompasses multiple different subgroups or phenotypes, each with differing presentations. Using clinical phenotyping, in combination with rapidly advancing molecular tools and targeted monoclonal antibodies (human knockouts), the understanding of these phenotypes, and our ability to treat them, have greatly advanced. Type-2 (T2)-high and -low severe asthmas are now easily identified. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophil counts can be routinely employed in clinical settings to identify these phenotypes and predict responses to specific therapies, meeting the initial goals of precision medicine. Integration of molecular signals, biomarkers, and clinical responses to targeted therapies has enabled identification of critical molecular pathways and, in certain phenotypes, advanced them to near-endotype status. Despite these advances, little guidance is available to determine which class of biologic is appropriate for a given patient, and current "breakthrough" therapies remain expensive and even inaccessible to many patients. Many of the most severe asthmas, with and without T2-biomarker elevations, remain poorly understood and treated. Nevertheless, conceptual understanding of "the severe asthmas" has evolved dramatically in a mere 25 years, leading to dramatic improvements in the lives of many.

Ligelizumab treatment for severe asthma: learnings from the clinical development programme

Objective

Ligelizumab is a humanised IgG1 anti-IgE antibody that binds IgE with higher affinity than omalizumab. Ligelizumab had greater efficacy than omalizumab on inhaled and skin allergen provocation responses in mild allergic asthma. This multi-centre, randomised, double-blind study was designed to test ligelizumab in severe asthma patients not adequately controlled with high-dose inhaled corticoids plus long-acting β2-agonist.

Methods

Patients received 16 weeks ligelizumab (240 mg q2w), omalizumab or placebo subcutaneously, and ACQ-7 was measured as primary outcome at Week 16. In addition, the study generated dose-ranging data of ligelizumab and safety data.

Results

A total of 471 patients, age 47.4 ± 13.36 years, were included in the study. Treatment with ligelizumab did not significantly improve asthma control (ACQ-7) and exacerbation rates compared to omalizumab and placebo. Therefore, primary and secondary objectives of the study were not met. The compound was well tolerated, and the safety profile showed no new safety findings. Pharmacokinetic data demonstrated faster clearance and lower serum concentrations of ligelizumab than historical omalizumab data, and exploratory in vitro data showed differential IgE blocking properties relative to FcεRI and FcεRII/CD23 between the two compounds.

Conclusion

Ligelizumab failed to demonstrate superiority over placebo or omalizumab. Although ligelizumab is more potent than omalizumab at inhibiting IgE binding to the high-affinity FcεRI, there is differential IgE blocking properties relative to FcεRI and FcεRII/CD23 between the two compounds. Therefore, the data suggest that different anti-IgE antibodies might be selectively efficacious for different IgE-mediated diseases.

Real-World Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Severe Allergic Asthma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Assessment of clinical outcomes in the real-world corroborates findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated real-world data of omalizumab on treatment response, lung function, exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health care resource utilization (HCRU), and school/work absenteeism at 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment.

METHODS

Observational studies in patients with severe allergic asthma (≥6 years) treated with omalizumab for ≥16 weeks, published from January 2005 to October 2018, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. A random-effects model was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 86 publications were included. Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE) was good/excellent in 77% patients at 16 weeks (risk difference: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.84; I² = 96%) and in 82% patients at 12 months (0.82, 0.73-0.91; 97%). The mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 160, 220, and 250 mL at 16 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. There was a decrease in Asthma Control Questionnaire score at 16 weeks (-1.14), 6 months (-1.56), and 12 months (-1.13) after omalizumab therapy. Omalizumab significantly reduced annualized rate of severe exacerbations (risk ratio [RR]: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56; I² = 96%), proportion of patients receiving OCS (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75; I² = 96%), and number of unscheduled physician visits (mean difference: -2.34, 95% CI: -3.54 to -1.13; I² = 98%) at 12 months versus baseline.

CONCLUSION

The consistent improvements in GETE, lung function, and PROs, and reductions in asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HCRU with add-on omalizumab in real-life confirm and complement the efficacy data of RCTs.

No difference in omalizumab efficacy in patients with asthma by number of asthma-related and allergic comorbidities

BACKGROUND

Comorbidities are common in asthma and may complicate treatment response.

OBJECTIVE

To examine response to omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma by asthma-related and allergic comorbidities.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 years or more from placebo-controlled 008/009 (n = 1071), EXTRA (n = 848), and INNOVATE (n = 419), and single-armed PROSPERO (n = 801) omalizumab studies were included. Poisson regression/analysis of covariance models were used to estimate adjusted exacerbation rates and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) change from baseline after omalizumab initiation for subgroups by number of comorbidities (0, 1 [008/009]; 0, 1, ≥2 [EXTRA and INNOVATE]; 0, 1, 2, ≥3 [PROSPERO]). Self-reported comorbidities included allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, recurrent acute sinusitis, nasal polyps, atopic and contact dermatitis, urticaria, food allergy, anaphylaxis, other allergies, gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

RESULTS

In the EXTRA and INNOVATE studies, no consistent pattern was observed for placebo-corrected relative rate reduction in normalized asthma exacerbations among omalizumab-treated comorbidity subgroups. In PROSPERO, on-study exacerbation rates in the comorbidity subgroups were similar (0, 0.68; 1, 0.70; 2, 0.77; ≥3, 0.80). FEV1 improvements were observed throughout the study for omalizumab vs placebo for all comorbidity subgroups. There were no consistent differences in FEV1 improvements among comorbidity subgroups in 008/009, EXTRA, or INNOVATE. Similarly, no among-group differences were observed for FEV1 change from baseline at month 12 in PROSPERO (0, 0.05 L; 1, 0.08 L; 2, 0.00 L; ≥3, 0.04 L). The 95% confidence intervals overlapped substantially in all instances.

CONCLUSION

In these analyses of placebo-controlled/single-armed studies, on-study exacerbation rates and FEV1 improvements with omalizumab treatment were similar irrespective of comorbidity burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers are as follows: EXTRA, NCT00314574 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00314574); INNOVATE, NCT00046748 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00046748); and PROSPERO, NCT01922037 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01922037).

Prior authorization delays biologic initiation and is associated with a risk of asthma exacerbations

Background: Biologics are effective treatments for patients with severe allergic disease. Impacts of delays in the prior authorization process on clinical outcomes has not been studied. Objective: The objective was to quantify the times for approval and filling of biologics, and whether patients were at risk of exacerbations during this time frame. Methods: The times for insurance approval and pharmacy filling of biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab) in 80 subjects with severe asthma (n = 60) or urticaria (n = 20) from our clinic were reviewed. We compared the impact of clinical features, insurance, specialty pharmacy on fill times, and quantified exacerbations and prednisone use while awaiting biologic initiation. Results: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) time (days) from submission of a prescription to the first dose available for injection was 44.0 ± 23.2 days. This was composed of the mean ± SD time for insurance approval (21.5 ± 19.6 days) and the mean ± SD time for a specialty pharmacy to fill the medication (22.8 ± 14.1 days). There was no significant difference between the times for diagnosis (asthma versus urticaria), specific biologic, or insurance. The "buy and bill" system was faster than filling via a specialty pharmacy (mean ± SD, 7.3 ± 8.5 days versus 23.3 ± 21.3 days, respectively, p < 0.001). Clinical features of patients with fast versus slow approval times was not significantly different. The subjects with asthma were at high risk of exacerbations and need for prednisone while awaiting initiation of the biologics; 28 of 59 patients (47%) required prednisone, with an mean cumulative dose of 483.2 ± 273.7 mg per person. Conclusion: The prior authorization process for biologics was slow, and the subjects were at high risk of exacerbations during this time. The system needs to be improved to expedite approval and initiation of these medications.

How Frequently Is Asthma Objectively Demonstrated before Starting a Biologic? Quality Assessment of a Group Practice of Allergists and Immunologists

Worldwide, asthma-related healthcare cost remains a major burden. Individuals with severe asthma account for 50% of that cost. Although they are expensive, biologics such as anti-IL5 and anti-IgE agents promise cost-effectiveness when judiciously used to decrease asthma-related hospitalization and the debilitating side effects of systemic corticosteroids. Before considering biologics to treat patients with asthma, current guidelines recommend confirmation of asthma and control of comorbid diseases. Diagnostic confirmation of asthma can be challenging among individuals with severe asthma. In this quality assessment study, we determined the frequency of objective asthma confirmation and addressing of comorbidities prior to starting biologics at a group practice of allergists and immunologists. We surveyed our specialty providers to understand habit(s) leading to the observed results. We identified 40 adult patients who started on biologic modifiers for asthma over the past 5 years. Only 58% of these patients had a proper diagnosis of asthma. Providers underutilized several diagnostic methods that may prove useful in confirming asthma diagnosis in this patient population. The factors contributing to poor asthma control were rarely addressed. A sense of urgency to initiate biologics was the primary reason for the observed results. Further interventions are needed to improve asthma diagnosis and management prior to the initiation of biologic therapeutics.