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

Biologic treatment options for severe asthma

Asthma is a common condition that causes episodic expiratory airflow limitation due to bronchial smooth muscle constriction and airways inflammation resulting in increased respiratory symptoms and acute asthma exacerbations. Patients with severe asthma have relied on either recurrent courses or daily use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) to control their disease. However a high level of OCS exposure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years the elucidation of the role of T2 inflammation underpinning asthma pathogenesis has led to the development of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies targeting this pathway. Established therapies now include omalizumab targeting IgE, mepolizumab and reslizumab targeting IL-5, benralizumab targeting the IL-5R and dupilumab targeting IL-4R. For many patients these therapies have been transformative and their use has additionally advanced our understanding of the immunology that underpins the disease. This article reviews the biologic therapies currently available for the treatment of severe asthma.

IgE and mast cells: The endogenous adjuvant

Mast cells and IgE are most familiar as the effectors of type I hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis. It is becoming clear however that this pair has important immunomodulatory effects on innate and adaptive cells of the immune system. In this purview, they act as endogenous adjuvants to ignite evolving immune responses, promote the transition of allergic disease into chronic illness and disrupt the development of active mechanisms of tolerance to ingested foods. Suppression of IgE-mediated mast cell activation can be exerted by molecules targeting IgE, FcɛRI or signaling kinases including Syk, or by IgG antibodies acting via inhibitory Fcγ receptors. In 2015 we reviewed the evidence for the adjuvant functions of mast cells. This update includes the original text, incorporates some important developments in the field over the past five years and discusses how interventions targeting these pathways might have promise in the development of strategies to treat allergic disease.

Targeted Molecular Therapies in Allergy and Rhinology

Biologic agents, monoclonal antibodies that target highly-specific molecular pathways of inflammation, are becoming integrated into care pathways for multiple disorders that are relevant in otolaryngology and allergy. These conditions share common inflammatory mechanisms of so-called Type 2 inflammation with dysregulation of immunoglobulin E production and eosinophil and mast cell degranulation leading to tissue damage. Biologic agents are now available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). This paper summarizes the diagnosis and management of these conditions and critically reviews the clinical trial data that has led to regulatory approval of biologic agents for these conditions.

The Prevalence of Subtypes of Type 2 Inflammation in an Unselected Population of Patients with Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of different targeted therapies for type 2 (T2)-high asthma, there is an urgent need for markers to guide the choice of treatment. T2-high asthma includes different clinical phenotypes of asthma, but the prevalence and impact of activation of different T2 inflammatory pathways is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the level of coexpression of clinically available T2 inflammatory markers in patients with severe asthma, and the relationship with clinical characteristics and comorbidities.

METHODS

Patients with severe asthma according to European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines were examined prospectively including sputum induction and grouped according to T2 biomarkers: blood eosinophilia (≥0.3 × 10⁹/L), total IgE (≥150 U/mL), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (≥25 parts per billion).

RESULTS

We found 116 (70%) of the 166 patients to have at least 1 T2 biomarker elevated: 39% had 2 or more elevated biomarkers, whereas 31% had only 1 biomarker elevated. Concomitant airway and systemic eosinophilia was present in 28% of all patients, corresponding to half (53%) of the patients with either. Expression patterns of the T2 biomarkers were associated with differences in allergic sensitization and the coexistence of nasal polyposis.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with severe asthma showed at least 1 T2 inflammatory trait. Coexpression of T2 biomarkers was highly heterogeneous, and different expression patterns were associated with distinct clinical characteristics.

Dupilumab Improves Asthma Control and Lung Function in Patients with Insufficient Outcome During Previous Antibody Therapy

BACKGROUND

Biological treatments directed against IgE and IL-5 have largely improved outcomes for patients with severe type 2-high asthma. However, a fraction of patients with severe asthma show insufficient treatment outcome under anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/IL-5 receptor α antibodies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether switching to dupilumab was of benefit in patients with insufficient outcome under previous anti-IgE or anti-IL-5/IL-5 receptor α therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 38 patients who were switched to dupilumab from a previous anti-IgE or anti-IL-5/IL-5 receptor α medication because of insufficient outcome. We defined response criteria after 3 to 6 months as an improvement in at least 1 of the following criteria without deterioration in the other criteria, comparing values under dupilumab with values under previous antibody therapy: (1) increase of 3 or more in Asthma Control Test score, (2) 50% or more reduction in oral corticosteroid dose, and (3) FEV₁ improvement greater than or equal to 150 mL, and classified patients as responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

Switch to dupilumab led to a response in 76% of patients. In the total cohort, Asthma Control Test score increased by a mean of 2.9 (P < .0001), whereas exacerbations decreased significantly (P < .0001) and number of oral corticosteroid-dependent patients decreased from 15 to 12. Mean FEV₁ improved by 305 mL (P < .0001). Median fractional exhaled nitric oxide decreased by -30 ppb (P < .0001), whereas eosinophil counts increased by 0.17 G/L (P < .01). There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between responders and nonresponders to dupilumab. However, patients with increased fractional exhaled nitric oxide (≥25 ppb) during previous antibody therapy were more often responders than patients with low fractional exhaled nitric oxide (<25 ppb) (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, we show that a switch to dupilumab in patients with insufficient outcome under previous biological therapy was effective in most patients.

Biological treatments for severe asthma

Severe asthma patients comprise about 3% to 13% of all asthma patients, but they have higher hospital utilization rates and higher medical costs than those of nonsevere asthma patients. Treatment methods for severe asthma patients are still lacking; however, the recent development of biologics is expected to have a positive effect. The biological therapies developed so far are mainly aimed at treating asthma patients with type 2 inflammation. These biologics have been found to reduce symptoms of asthma, improve lung function, reduce the use of oral corticosteroids, and improve quality of life of patients. This article reviews the mechanism of action and indications for approved biologics and discusses what should be considered when choosing biologics.

Anti-IL5 Therapies for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Literature Review and Practical Insights

Severe refractory asthma (SRA) still has a high economic and social impact, including a reduction in quality of life (QoL), productivity, a greater risk of exacerbations and emergency department (ED) visits. Another major issue is the need of oral corticosteroids (OCS), often due to a poor response to standard therapies or the lack of indication for currently available biological drugs. A thorough understanding of the immunological pathways and eosinophilopoietic processes allows a correct application of the new pharmacological strategies and leads to better clinical responses. For these unmet needs, several monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have been introduced over the past few years. These are mainly available for allergic and especially eosinophilic uncontrolled refractory asthma. As the number of therapeutic options increases, the choice of biological drugs can be made only after careful considerations of the particular asthma endotype, patients’ comorbidities and clinical data. The selection of the correct therapeutic option can therefore be guided after a careful evaluation of the particular endotype and phenotype, from the combined evaluation of inflammatory biomarkers, clinical picture and comorbidities. The careful evaluation of all these parameters can therefore help the physician in the optimal management of these complex patients, for whom it is often possible to achieve exceptional results by managing the available options in the best possible way. The aim of this review is to define the positioning of the biological drugs currently available for type 2 asthma, with a special focus on options for eosinophilic asthma in the context of the most recent knowledge of immunological pathways.

Asthma-COPD overlap: review of diagnosis and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are both commonly encountered respiratory conditions. The term asthma--COPD overlap (ACO) has been used to identify patients presenting with features of both conditions. Controversy exists regarding its definition, approach to diagnosis and management. In this publication, recent evidence has been reviewed that provides insight into diagnosis and management of this condition.

RECENT FINDINGS

Previously, multiple criteria were used to define Asthma--COPD overlap. In this publication, the most recent guidelines to identify this condition have been reviewed. This publication provides a summary of the recent evidence with regard to the role of various diagnostic modalities including the use of biomarkers, such as exhaled nitric oxide, serum IgE and provides updated evidence on available treatment choices for this condition.

SUMMARY

ACO is a commonly encountered clinical condition with patients experiencing frequent exacerbations and resulting in increased healthcare resource utilization. Recent interest in ACO has led to development of a framework towards diagnosis and management of this condition. Therapeutic choices for ACO range from bronchodilator therapy to immunomodulatory therapy, highlighting the heterogeneity of this condition. Additional research is required to improve understanding of pathogenesis and improve outcomes in ACO.

Biologics for Severe Asthma: Treatment-Specific Effects Are Important in Choosing a Specific Agent

Patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma have greater morbidity, greater use of health care resources, and more impairment in health-related quality of life when compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Fortunately, since the introduction of biological therapeutics, patients with severe eosinophilic asthma now have beneficial treatment options that they did not have just a few years ago. In addition to anti-IgE therapy for allergic asthma, 3 new biological therapeutics targeting IL-5 and 1 targeting IL-4 and IL-13 signaling have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, and approval of more biological therapeutics is on the horizon. These medications decrease the frequency of asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid usage, and improve health-related quality of life. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, specific indications, benefits, and side effects of each of the approved biological therapies for asthma. Furthermore, this article reviews how a clinician could use specific patient characteristics to decide which biologic treatment may be optimal for a given patient.

How do biologicals and other novel therapies effect clinically used biomarkers in severe asthma?

While there has been much interest in using biomarkers to select patients for particular targeted therapies, there has been much less attention paid to how these biomarkers change in patients once treatment begins. This is an area of great interest to practising clinicians, especially respiratory physicians and allergists who manage severe asthma. In this article, we review monoclonal antibodies and related targeted therapies, especially those that are currently available or in late stage clinical trials, focussing on the differential effects such agents have on biomarkers in widespread clinical practice such as eosinophils, FeNO and total IgE. Serial measurements of biomarkers can be useful in determining whether a particular targeted therapy is having its expected biological effect and invaluable in assessing the reasons for treatment failure should that occur.

Pragmatic Clinical Perspective on Biologics for Severe Refractory Type 2 Asthma

Patients with severe refractory asthma present a challenging clinical conundrum for practicing clinicians. Biologics that target key mediators in the type 2 inflammation cascade, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IgE, can be effective strategies for these patients. However, with various biologics available, choosing the optimal one for a particular patient becomes a nuanced decision. We propose a pragmatic algorithm that identifies the optimal biologic class for patients who have specific type 2 disease endotypes. Patients with eosinophilic endotypes fare well with anti-IL-5(rα) medications, comprising mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab because they have been shown to reduce exacerbations in severe eosinophilic asthma by approximately 50%. In patients with fractional exhaled nitric oxide-high endotypes, anti-IL-4rα such as dupilumab is deemed to be most effective and has demonstrated a 47% reduction in asthma exacerbations. For patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma, anti-IgE (omalizumab) is effective and has been shown to confer a 25% reduction in asthma exacerbations. Type 2 comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, and eosinophilic esophagitis are important to bear in mind before the prescription of biologics. Further head-to-head studies are indicated to compare biologics in patients with mixed endotypes according to peripheral blood eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and allergic status. The evidence strongly supports endotype-driven prescribing of biologics to achieve clinically relevant outcomes in severe refractory asthma and related comorbidities.

Biological treatments for severe asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma is a heterogenous disease associated with different phenotypes and endotypes. The unmet needs with severe asthma have led to the emergence of potential therapeutic targets beyond the existing therapies. Recently, several biologics were examined and some have now been approved to target T2 airway inflammation in patients with severe disease. We provide an overview of recently approved biologic, those which are emerging and highlight unmet needs in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple biologics targeting T2 high asthma are now available for clinical use in the appropriate groups of severe asthma. These target overlapping phenotypes, which include allergic and eosinophilic asthma. Available biologics were shown to improve outcomes that include the reduction of exacerbations and improvement of lung function. Some have also demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Some of these biologics have also demonstrated beneficial effects on associated asthma comorbidities. Biomarkers help predict response to certain biologics, although only few currently exist. Emerging biologics blocking other pathways of airway inflammation are under development. Several small molecule antagonists and inhibitors are also in development. Biologics and therapies targeting T2 low or non-T2 asthma are needed.

SUMMARY

Recently approved biologic therapies improve asthma outcomes in subset of patients. Future research to uncover better predictors of response can improve the precise approach to therapy of patients with severe disease.

The management of severe asthma in 2020

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways affecting more than 300 million patients worldwide. The disease can be of various severity ranging from very mild to severe. The severe form of the disease only affects about 5% of patients but is responsible for a large component of the overall disease burden and results in about half of direct asthma-related costs. This led to important investments in research, which allowed better understanding of its pathophysiology and the development of new therapeutic strategies. Despite those breakthroughs, recent guidelines still emphasize the need to distinguish uncontrolled or difficult-to-control asthma from severe asthma. Indeed, a significant number of patients referred to severe asthma clinics are non-severe uncontrolled patients. However, the basics of asthma management such as ensuring that the patient has the right diagnosis, recognition of contributing comorbidities, avoidance of exposure to sensitizing agents in allergic individuals, regular assessment of control, and patient education should not be forgotten. The major improvements in pathophysiology arose from the evidences that asthma is of heterogeneous nature. Such heterogeneity has been particularly studied in severe asthma, leading to the recognition of more homogeneous groups referred to as phenotypes. Appropriate phenotyping of individual patients allows enforcing more specific treatment plans for patients, which is a step toward precision medicine. The high morbidity and socioeconomic burden of severe asthma has led to the development of optimized therapeutic strategies in addition to the commercialization of new drugs. Many of these have targeted the eosinophilic component of inflammatory asthma phenotypes while there is still a need to develop new therapies for non-eosinophilic asthma. When asthma is not controlled by optimal therapy, including a high-dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), a long acting anticholinergic agent can be added and if insufficient, a variety of biologic agents is now available in many countries. When biologics are not an option, thermoplasty and macrolides have also become available. Despite many recent breakthroughs in severe asthma, much research needs to be done. Improvement in availability of targeted asthma medications and asthma prevention should be top priorities.

Efficacy of omalizumab in children, adolescents, and adults with severe allergic asthma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and call for new trials using current guidelines for assessment of severe asthma

Background

Omalizumab is approved for treating severe allergic asthma from age 6, but the definition of severe asthma including a systematic assessment to rule out difficult-to-treat asthma has changed since the drug was approved in 2003.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of two critical (exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment) and eight important clinical outcomes in children, adolescents and adults, and specifically searched papers for systematic assessment of severe asthma.

Results

Adults: seven studies (n = 2159) ascertaining exacerbation rate showing a 37% (95% CI 21–50) reduction in favor of omalizumab, larger than the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 25%. Only one open-label study (n = 82) was identified assessing the percentage of patients experiencing reduction of OCS-maintenance treatment showing a significantly greater decrease in the omalizumab group (− 45% vs. + 18.3%, p = 0.002). Children and adolescents: four studies (n = 1551) reported data on exacerbations (no meta-analysis conducted), showed overall improvements in exacerbation rate and some passed MCID. No OCS studies were identified. No included studies provided systematic assessment of severe asthma according to current guidelines.

Conclusions

Omalizumab provides clinically relevant improvements in exacerbation rate among children, adolescents, and adults and in OCS-reduction among adults. New studies incorporating a guideline-approached definition of severe asthma are warranted.

Management of Severe Asthma Beyond the Guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma is one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases worldwide, yet only a small percentage of patients are categorized as having severe disease. Severe asthmatics, however, are responsible for the largest burden of healthcare costs and lost productivity. Several recent guidelines have addressed disease pathogenesis and treatment modalities for these complex patients. Herein, we review the severe asthma guidelines, compare the existing guidelines, address key areas that are yet to be addressed in the guidelines, and discuss future directions for severe asthma research.

RECENT FINDINGS

This is a narrative review of the 2019 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines that specifically address the diagnosis and management of severe asthma. The pathophysiological mechanisms that underlie severe asthma are reviewed, and novel therapies that target specific pathophysiological pathways in severe asthma are discussed in detail. Although the guidelines address the use of novel biological therapies for patients with T2-mediated disease, data comparing these agents remain sparse. This review addresses several areas that are topics beyond the guidelines and highlight key areas where future research is warranted. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of severe asthma treatment and discusses potential avenues for future research for this patient population.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Childhood Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been an explosion of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe uncontrolled adult asthma. Studies have now been published in severe pediatric asthma. There are numerous questions that need to be answered in determining whether these modalities are appropriate and safe in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

This is a narrative review examining the latest pediatric literature on monoclonal antibodies, both approved and in the pipeline, for uncontrolled asthma. Presently, all of the biologics are positioned to treat patients with underlying type 2 high disease. Two monoclonal antibodies are approved for children 6 years of age and older, omalizumab and mepolizumab, with more likely approved in the near future. The effect of these agents in controlling severe pediatric asthma is promising. Data is limited to long-term efficacy and safety, and whether any agent has an effect on the natural history of asthma.

Dual blockade of IL-4 and IL-13 with dupilumab, an IL-4Rα antibody, is required to broadly inhibit type 2 inflammation

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds IL-4Rα and inhibits signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13, has shown efficacy across multiple diseases with underlying type 2 signatures and is approved for treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, and chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis. We sought to provide a comprehensive analysis of the redundant and distinct roles of IL-4 and IL-13 in type 2 inflammation and report dupilumab mechanisms of action.

METHODS

Using primary cell assays and a mouse model of house dust mite-induced asthma, we compared IL-4 vs IL-13 vs IL-4Rα blockers.

RESULTS

Intranasal administration of either IL-4 or IL-13 confers an asthma-like phenotype in mice by inducing immune cell lung infiltration, including eosinophils, increasing cytokine/chemokine expression and mucus production, thus demonstrating redundant functions of these cytokines. We further teased out their respective contributions using human in vitro culture systems. Then, in a mouse asthma model by comparing in head-to-head studies, either IL-4 or IL-13 inhibition to dual IL-4/IL-13 inhibition, we demonstrate that blockade of both IL-4 and IL-13 is required to broadly block type 2 inflammation, which translates to protection from allergen-induced lung function impairment. Notably, only dual IL-4/IL-13 blockade prevented eosinophil infiltration into lung tissue without affecting circulating eosinophils, demonstrating that tissue, but not circulating eosinophils, contributes to disease pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these data support IL-4 and IL-13 as key drivers of type 2 inflammation and help provide insight into the therapeutic mechanism of dupilumab, a dual IL-4/IL-13 blocker, in multiple type 2 diseases.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 - 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 - 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 - 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 -1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) -0.45 (95% CI -0.58 to -0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD -0.41 (95%CI -0.66 to -0.15)].

Prediction of response to biological treatment with monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma

In recent years, major developments have occurred in severe asthma management. Different asthma phenotypes and subgroups have been identified and new treatment options have become available. A total of five monoclonal antibodies are currently approved in severe asthma treatment: omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. These drugs have been shown to reduce exacerbations and to have an oral corticosteroid-sparing effect in many severe asthma patients. However, biological treatment is not successful in all patients and should be discontinued in non-responsive patients. Treating the right patient with the right biologic, and therefore biologic response prediction, has become a major point of interest in severe asthma management. A variety of response outcomes is utilized in the different clinical trials, as well as a huge range of potential predicting factors. Also, regarding the timing of the response evaluation, there are considerable differences between studies. This review summarizes the results from studies on predicting responses and responders to biological treatment in severe asthma, taking into account clinical, functional and inflammatory parameters assessed prior to the start of treatment as well as following a few months of therapy. In addition, future perspectives are discussed, highlighting the need for more research to improve patient identification and treatment responses in the field of biological treatment in severe asthma.

Pediatric use of omalizumab for allergic asthma

INTRODUCTION

Severe pediatric asthma is associated with significant morbidity as well as with a high economic burden. It represents a heterogeneous disease with multiple clinical phenotypes. Currently, physicians are facing the challenge to provide a 'personalized medicine approach', which is tailored to the diverse pathomechanisms underlying clinical presentations. Three main endotypes of airway inflammation have been described in children with severe asthma. While neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic inflammatory patterns are quite uncommon in childhood, type Th2 inflammation asthma with elevated IgE is the most prevalent in pediatric asthma. Considering the pivotal role of IgE in type Th2 inflammation asthma, the blockade of IgE using anti-IgE therapy represents a potent therapeutic option for severe pediatric asthma in children.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to focus on the role of omalizumab as a treatment option in pediatric patients (aged six years and above) with severe allergic asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

The clinical efficacy and safety of omalizumab for the treatment of pediatric asthma is well documented in clinical trials and observational studies. Further studies are still required to characterize the potential benefit of anti-IgE therapy in airway remodeling, identify additional biomarkers of clinical response and address current unmet needs, including the limit on omalizumab use in children younger than six years.

Biologics or immunotherapeutics for asthma?

Asthma is now recognised as a heterogenous inflammatory disease of the lung based on cellular infiltrates and transcriptional profiles of blood and airway cells. Four distinct subgroups have been defined, eosinophilic (T2), neutrophilic (T1), mixed eosinophilic/neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic. Patients can also be stratified at a molecular level into T2-high, T2-low and/or T1 based on their gene signatures. Current treatments for asthma have been centred on administration of steroids and/or bronchodilators for the relief of bronchoconstriction and inflammation. These treatments are not always effective and often have limited efficacy during exacerbations. Eosinophil expansion and homing to tissues, bronchoconstriction, IgE production and mucus hypersecretion (hallmark features of asthma) are regulated by the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, the latter of which can induce the expression of the eosinophil chemotactic factors CCL11 and CCL24. A number of new generation biologics (monoclonal antibodies) targeting pathways regulated by the T2 cytokines IL-5 and IL-4/13 (IL-4 receptor alpha) have yielded effective therapies for eosinophil induced exacerbations of severe asthma. Despite these advances, difficulties still remain in treating all exacerbations, and this may reflect the contribution of other inflammatory cells such as neutrophils to pathogenesis. This review describes the effectiveness of targeting T2 pathways, emerging approaches and identifies the potential next steps for therapeutic intervention.

Beyond type 2 cytokines in asthma - new insights from old clinical trials

Introduction: Human asthma is a heterogeneous disorder on molecular, pathological, and clinical levels. The paradigm of asthma as an allergic process driven by type 2 cytokines and mediators has led to targeted biologic therapies resulting in some clinical benefit in patient subsets. However, some patient subsets and clinical manifestations do not benefit from these interventions, thus redefining unmet needs. Clinical studies of type 2 directed therapies have identified new targets under investigation in clinical development; these include epithelial alarmins, non-type 2 cytokines, cytokine receptor signaling, mast cells and neuroinflammation.Areas covered: We consider lessons learned concerning asthma pathogenesis from observational studies and clinical trials of biologic agents that target type 2 mediators. We also provide a perspective on emerging therapeutic hypotheses to target processes independent of or orthogonal to type 2 inflammation in asthma.Expert opinion: Type 2 inflammation is continuous, not discrete, and is likely a modifier of underlying dysregulated airway physiology. Non-type 2 inflammatory mediators (e.g., IL17, IL6, IFNs), microbiome, alarmins (e.g., TSLP, IL33), mast cells and sensory neurons may represent orthogonal targets to type 2 mediators. There is a need to better match targets and outcome measures in biologically defined patient populations to appropriately test hypotheses in the clinic.

Severe uncontrolled asthma in children: practical approach on diagnosis and management

Severe uncontrolled asthma in children is a complex and heterogeneous disease and is considered a challenge for the pediatricians. Although nearly 5% of children with asthma present with a severe uncontrolled disease, these patients and their caregivers face a significant burden, including troublesome persistent symptoms, life-threatening acute attacks, medication side effects, impaired school performance, neuropsychological problems, and lower quality of life (QoL). Moreover, these patients also account for substantially higher healthcare resource use and costs than average patients with asthma. Thus, it is essential to accurately define and diagnose severe asthma in children as they potentially need close monitoring and additional treatment with advanced therapies. This review aims to update knowledge on diagnosis and management of severe uncontrolled asthma in childhood. We describe a practical approach to differentiate children with difficult-to-treat asthma from those with true severe therapy-resistant asthma. Moreover, the recent advances in the understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms and inflammatory mediators involved in asthma have paved the way for the development of a precision medicine approach. In this context, we analyze approved personalized therapies for severe uncontrolled asthma, focusing on the pediatric indications.

Intersection of biology and therapeutics: type 2 targeted therapeutics for adult asthma

Asthma is a disease of reversible airflow obstruction characterised clinically by wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Increases in airway type 2 cytokine activity, including interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-13, are now established biological mechanisms in asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids have been the foundation for asthma treatment, in a large part because they decrease airway type 2 inflammation. However, inhaled or systemic corticosteroids are ineffective treatments in many patients with asthma and few treatment options exist for patients with steroid resistant asthma. Although mechanisms for corticosteroid refractory asthma are likely to be numerous, the development of a new class of biologic agents that target airway type 2 inflammation has provided a new model for treating some patients with corticosteroid refractory asthma. The objective of this Therapeutic paper is to summarise the new type 2 therapeutics, with an emphasis on the biological rationale and clinical efficacy of this new class of asthma therapeutics.

Allergic Endotypes and Phenotypes of Asthma

Allergic asthma is defined as asthma associated with sensitization to aeroallergens, which leads to asthma symptoms and airway inflammation. Allergic asthma is the most common asthma phenotype. The onset of allergic asthma is most often in childhood and is usually accompanied by other comorbidities including atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis. It is often persistent although there is a wide variation in disease severity. It is a TH2-driven process. Biomarkers have been identified to distinguish patients with allergic asthma, particularly serum IgE levels, tests to indicate sensitization to aeroallergens such as specific IgE or skin prick test positivity, blood and sputum eosinophil levels, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, and periostin. Treatments for allergic asthma include environmental control measures, allergen immunotherapy, and glucocorticoids. Biologics, targeting the TH2 pathway, have been shown to be effective in the treatment of allergic asthma.

Omalizumab for Severe Allergic Asthma Treatment in Italy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from PROXIMA Study

Introduction

Inadequately controlled severe asthma patients require additional therapy accounting for significant clinical and economic burden. Our analysis aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in the management of severe allergic asthma in Italy based on observational data from the PROXIMA study.

Methods

Observational data on efficacy, healthcare resource utilization and changes in quality of life at 12 months after the initiation of omalizumab were examined to estimate the cost-effectiveness compared to pre-omalizumab period and results were expressed with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). The cost–utility analysis estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Direct health costs were assessed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Results

Omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, number of hospitalizations, physician visits, and improved quality of life after 12 months of treatment. Omalizumab had a greater effectiveness than pre-omalizumab treatment involving 0.132 QALYs gained and led to a €3729 per patient reduction in direct healthcare costs, excluding the add-on treatment cost. Nevertheless, the addition of omalizumab cost led to €7478 increase in total direct costs with respect to pre-omalizumab period. Based on difference in total direct cost and difference in QALY between post and pre-omalizumab period, the ICER was €56,847. According to sensitivity analysis, omalizumab provided a cost-effective use of NHS resources, already at 20% discounted price.

Conclusion

This study offers a real-world evidence of omalizumab effectiveness in Italy. Despite the high acquisition cost of the innovative drug, omalizumab is a sustainable treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Role of Biologics in Asthma

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma have disproportionally high morbidity and healthcare utilization as compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Although treatment options for these patients were previously limited, with unacceptable side effects, the emergence of biologic therapies for the treatment of asthma has provided promising targeted therapy for these patients. Biologic therapies target specific inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma, particularly in patients with an endotype driven by type 2 (T2) inflammation. In addition to anti-IgE therapy that has improved outcomes in allergic asthma for more than a decade, three anti-IL-5 biologics and one anti-IL-4R biologic have recently emerged as promising treatments for T2 asthma. These targeted therapies have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce oral corticosteroid use, and improve quality of life in appropriately selected patients. In addition to the currently approved biologic agents, several biologics targeting upstream inflammatory mediators are in clinical trials, with possible approval on the horizon. This article reviews the mechanism of action, indications, expected benefits, and side effects of each of the currently approved biologics for severe uncontrolled asthma and discusses promising therapeutic targets for the future.

Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline

This document provides clinical recommendations for the management of severe asthma. Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of asthma experts, who made specific recommendations on six specific questions. After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) suggest using anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α for severe uncontrolled adult eosinophilic asthma phenotypes; 2) suggest using a blood eosinophil cut-point ≥150 μL^-1 to guide anti-IL-5 initiation in adult patients with severe asthma; 3) suggest considering specific eosinophil (≥260 μL^-1) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (≥19.5 ppb) cut-offs to identify adolescents or adults with the greatest likelihood of response to anti-IgE therapy; 4) suggest using inhaled tiotropium for adolescents and adults with severe uncontrolled asthma despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4-5 or National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) step 5 therapies; 5) suggest a trial of chronic macrolide therapy to reduce asthma exacerbations in persistently symptomatic or uncontrolled patients on GINA step 5 or NAEPP step 5 therapies, irrespective of asthma phenotype; and 6) suggest using anti-IL-4/13 for adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and for those with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma regardless of blood eosinophil levels. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

Asthma biologics: Comparing trial designs, patient cohorts and study results

OBJECTIVE

Five biologic therapies have FDA-approved indications for difficult-to-control asthma. The clinical trials that proved the efficacy and safety of these biologics were often similar in their inclusion criteria, study designs, and endpoints. Many of these trials have been reanalyzed post hoc to identify subsets of subjects considered to be enhanced responders. As a result, keeping up with the literature and deciding on the most appropriate biologic for our patients has become increasingly difficult. This review summarizes and compares trial designs, patient cohorts, and study results of the major trials involving these therapies.

DATA SOURCES

Included are basic science articles, online Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applications, and all the published reports of phase II and phase III clinical trials for FDA-approved asthma biologics.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Included are the major phase II and phase III clinical trials of 5 asthma biologics.

RESULTS

Because of variations in inclusion criteria and natural variations in enrolled cohorts, the baseline clinical traits and severity of study populations in asthma biologic trials differed significantly, which is important because baseline annualized exacerbation rates and blood eosinophilia are both strong predictors of a biologic's success. Notwithstanding, the trial results, when considered together, can help guide care providers in choosing the most appropriate biologic for our patients.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the details and differences in asthma biologic trial designs, patient cohorts, and in study results will help care providers make more informed decisions when choosing a biologic. We are hopeful this review will serve as a reference to care providers for this purpose.

EUFOREA consensus on biologics for CRSwNP with or without asthma

Novel therapies such as type 2 targeting biologics are emerging treatment options for patients with chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases, fulfilling the needs of severely uncontrolled patients. The majority of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and over half of patients with asthma show a type 2 inflammatory signature in sinonasal mucosa and/or lungs. Importantly, both chronic respiratory diseases are frequent comorbidities, ensuring alleviation of both upper and lower airway pathology by systemic biological therapy. Type 2-targeting biologics such as anti-IgE, anti-IL4Rα, anti-IL5, and anti-IL5Rα have entered the market for selected pheno/endotypes of asthma patients and may soon also become available for CRSwNP patients. Given the high prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases and the high cost associated with biologics, patient selection is crucial in order to implement such therapies into chronic respiratory disease care pathways. The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) organized a multidisciplinary Expert Board Meeting to discuss the positioning of biologics into the care pathways for CRSwNP patients with and without comorbid asthma.

Effect of omalizumab on lung function and eosinophil levels in adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with asthma. Several studies have shown lung function improvements with omalizumab; however, this has not been examined exclusively in adolescents.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of omalizumab on lung function and eosinophil counts in adolescents with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, data from adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from 8 randomized trials of omalizumab were pooled (studies 008, 009, and 011, and SOLAR, INNOVATE, ALTO, ETOPA, and EXTRA). Changes from baseline to end of study in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), percent predicted FEV₁ (ppFEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), and blood eosinophil counts were assessed by fitting an analysis of covariance model and calculating least squares mean (LSM) difference for omalizumab vs placebo.

RESULTS

A total of 340 adolescents were identified (omalizumab, n = 203 [59.7%]; placebo, n = 137 [40.3%]). Omalizumab increased all baseline lung function variables more than placebo by end of study: LSM treatment differences (95% confidence interval) were 3.0% (0.2%-5.7%; P = .035), 120.9 mL (30.6-211.2 mL; P = .009), and 101.5 mL (8.3-194.6 mL; P = .033) for ppFEV₁, absolute FEV₁, and FVC, respectively. The LSM difference demonstrated a greater reduction in eosinophil counts for omalizumab vs placebo: -85.9 cells/μL (-137.1 to -34.6 cells/μL; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab was associated with lung function improvements and circulating eosinophil counts reductions in adolescents with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. Findings emphasize the effect of omalizumab in young patients and the need to optimize treatment early in the disease course. https://clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00314574, NCT00046748, NCT00401596.

Defining severe obstructive lung disease in the biologic era: an endotype-based approach

Severe obstructive lung disease, which encompasses asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or features of both, remains a considerable global health problem and burden on healthcare resources. However, the clinical definitions of severe asthma and COPD do not reflect the heterogeneity within these diagnoses or the potential for overlap between them, which may lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. Furthermore, most studies exclude patients with diagnoses of both asthma and COPD. Clinical definitions can influence clinical trial design and are both influenced by, and influence, regulatory indications and treatment recommendations. Therefore, to ensure its relevance in the era of targeted biologic therapies, the definition of severe obstructive lung disease must be updated so that it includes all patients who could benefit from novel treatments and for whom associated costs are justified. Here, we review evolving clinical definitions of severe obstructive lung disease and evaluate how these have influenced trial design by summarising eligibility criteria and primary outcomes of phase III randomised controlled trials of biologic therapies. Based on our findings, we discuss the advantages of a phenotype- and endotype-based approach to select appropriate populations for future trials that may influence regulatory approvals and clinical practice, allowing targeted biologic therapies to benefit a greater proportion and range of patients. This calls for co-ordinated efforts between investigators, pharmaceutical developers and regulators to ensure biologic therapies reach their full potential in the management of severe obstructive lung disease.

Recent Advances in Severe Asthma: From Phenotypes to Personalized Medicine

This review focuses on recent clinical and translational discoveries in severe and uncontrolled asthma that now enable phenotyping and personalized therapies in these patients. Although asthma is common in both children and adults and typically responds to standard therapies, a subset of individuals with asthma experience severe and/or persistent symptoms despite appropriate therapies. Airflow obstruction leading to frequent symptoms requiring higher levels of controller therapy is the cardinal feature of severe asthma, but the underlying molecular mechanisms, or endotypes, are diverse and variable between individuals. Two major risk factors that contribute to severe asthma are genetics and environmental exposures that modulate immune responses, and although these often interact in complex manners that are not fully understood, certain endotypes converge in severe asthma. A number of studies have evaluated various features of patients with severe asthma and classified patients into phenotypes with clinical relevance. This phenotyping is now incorporated into clinical practice and can be used to guide advanced biological therapies that target specific molecules and inflammatory pathways that contribute to asthma pathogenesis.

Severe asthma phenotypes in patients controlled with omalizumab: A real-world study

BACKGROUND

The appropriate identification of asthma phenotypes of responders to omalizumab would optimize the selection of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the most frequent clinical phenotypes in patients with severe asthma responding to omalizumab and their clinical and pulmonary function improvement.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, multicenter study. Adult patients with severe asthma, who achieved good control after the first year of treatment with omalizumab were included. Omalizumab was prescribed according to clinical routine practice. Responders were assigned to one pre-established phenotype based on the most predominant one before they had started treatment with omalizumab, all according to the physician's criteria. Data about asthma symptoms, number of non-severe asthma exacerbations, medication intake (inhaled and oral corticosteroids and rescue medication), lung function, high fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and peripheral eosinophils counts were recorded.

RESULTS

Among the 345 patients included, the main phenotypes were severe asthma with frequent exacerbations (29.9%), early-onset allergic asthma (23.8%), severe steroid-dependent asthma (18.8%), and severe eosinophilic asthma (13.6%). Clinical and respiratory changes observed after first year of treatment with omalizumab included: reduction in asthma symptoms, reduction in the use and dose of corticosteroids and need for rescue therapy, improvement of pulmonary function, reduction in the number of episodes of non-severe asthma exacerbations regardless of the duration of severe disease since the diagnosis. Increased blood levels of peripheral eosinophils and high FeNO levels were found at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Several heterogeneous severe asthma phenotypes were observed as good responders to omalizumab.

In search of clinically relevant parameters to monitor successful omalizumab therapy in allergic asthma

Background: Omalizumab is approved as add-on therapy for the treatment of severe uncontrolled allergic asthma. Increase in quality of life and decrease of exacerbations and hospital admission, as well as immunmodulatory effects have been described with omalizumab therapy. However, to date there are few parameters to monitor success and to evaluate the individual advantage of this therapy for the patient. Furthermore, no reliable parameter to predict response to treatment exists so far. The aim of this study was to define an easily applicable parameter for response to treatment with omalizumab. Method: 43 patients with allergic asthma were treated with omalizumab at a dose of at least 0,016 mg/kg/IgE every 4 weeks. Before, and 12 weeks after initiation of therapy, bodyplethysmography including airway resistance was performed. Efficacy of treatment was judged by the attending physician on the basis of a five point chart. Furthermore, a differential blood count was performed before, and 12 weeks after initiation of treatment. Total and specific IgE against all relevant antigens were determined before start of therapy. Results: Airway resistance in patients with response to treatment with omalizumab (responders) was significantly decreased in comparison to patients without clinical benefit (non-responder). The number of eosinophil granulocytes in the peripheral blood was decreased in both groups without significant difference. Response to therapy was associated with younger age and lower levels of specific IgE against the allergen with the highest sIgE-level (seasonal and perennial), but not with the sIgE level of the perennial allergens in general. Conclusion: Measurement of airway resistance might be an additional parameter for monitoring response to therapy with omalizumab. High specific IgE levels, for both perennial and concomitant seasonal allergens as well as increasing age, seem to predict less favorable treatment outcomes.

Real-life studies of biologics used in asthma patients: key differences and similarities to trials

Introduction: The precision medicine approach that is now mandatory for severe asthma management includes the use of novel biologic agents blocking specific immunological mechanisms that are responsible for disease phenotypes and endotypes: monoclonal antibodies blocking IgE, IL-5 and IL-4/IL-13 immunological pathways are so far available. Areas covered: Clinical trials involving a large number of patients proved their efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, improving lung function and quality of life, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroid treatment. Since biologics have been available for routine use, a series of real-life experiences on severe asthmatics treated with them have been published: these studies confirmed the beneficial effects in a real-world setting (effectiveness) of these drugs and showed novel aspects that were not covered by clinical trials, such as their effect on particular subgroup of patients, unexpected adverse events, and potential novel indications. Expert opinion: Both clinical trials and real-life experiences are needed to establish robust data on biologic agents for severe asthma, with real-life studies giving more broader insights on different aspects related to the biologics themselves and to the disease.

Long-term evaluation of response to omalizumab therapy in real life by a novel multimodular approach: The Real-life Effectiveness of Omalizumab Therapy (REALITY) study

BACKGROUND

The evidence on long-term real-life response measures to omalizumab therapy in moderate to severe asthma is limited. A universal assessment tool is needed to adequately evaluate response to omalizumab in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To design a multimodular response assessment tool and use it to measure and define response to omalizumab therapy in real-world settings.

METHODS

The Real-life Effectiveness of Omalizumab Therapy (REALITY) study is a retrospective, long-term, real-life clinical study that evaluates response in individuals with allergic asthma who received omalizumab between 2004 and 2011. The Standardized Measure to Assess Response to Therapy (SMART) tool was designed to define response (1 year before to after treatment) by 3 modules: (1) physician's subjective assessment of asthma symptoms and control; (2) objective assessment of 6 parameters: improvement by 50% or more for asthma exacerbation, steroid bursts, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations; increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 200 mL or greater; and improved Asthma Control Test score of 3 or higher; -and (3) true responders (patient meeting both module 1 and 2 criteria). Response was assessed and compared for 3 modules at desired time points.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients (mean age, 31.7 years [range, 3-77 years]; 98 [49%] female; mean omalizumab therapy duration, 2.49 years [range, 3 months to 8 years]; mean omalizumab dosage, 473 mg every 4 weeks; median baseline IgE level, 433 IU/mL) were included in this analysis. Overall visit adherence was 78%, although the adherence rate decreased annually by 20%. Response rates assessed by SMART modules were 61.3%, 60.8%, and 41.8% at 16 weeks, 84.8%, 72.2%, and 64.6% at 1 year, 82.4%, 71.2%, and 63.2% at 2 years, and 95.1%, 87.8%, and 85.4% at 5 years for modules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There were no significant adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

The REALITY study has demonstrated long-term effectiveness of omalizumab therapy in individuals with allergic asthma in real-life settings. The SMART tool is promising as a potential standard assessment tool to measure and define response to asthma therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776177.

Omalizumab Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Asthma in the US Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

Asthma in older adults is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality; similarly, asthma can be severe enough among younger adults to warrant disability benefits. Reasons for poor outcomes in both groups of patients may include discontinuation and lack of adherence to controller therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To examine characteristics and treatment patterns of US Medicare patients initiating omalizumab for asthma, and factors associated with its discontinuation and adherence.

METHODS

A retrospective claims database analysis of Medicare beneficiaries with asthma initiating omalizumab treatment was carried out. The primary outcomes were omalizumab discontinuation (gap in use ≥90 days) and adherence (proportion of days covered ≥0.8) over a 12-month follow-up. Multivariable regressions were used to examine factors associated with omalizumab discontinuation and adherence.

RESULTS

Of the 3058 Medicare patients initiating omalizumab for asthma (mean age, 62.7 years), 36.9% discontinued omalizumab and 60.6% were adherent. Discontinuation rates were 32.7% and 42.8%, and adherence rates were 65.4% and 53.9%, for disabled and older Medicare patients, respectively. Patients aged 65 to 69 years and 70 to 74 years had significantly lower odds of discontinuation (odds ratios [95% CI], 0.66 [0.46-0.93] and 0.62 [0.43-0.89], respectively) and higher odds of adherence than did patients aged 80 years or older. Compared with patients receiving low-income subsidy, patients not receiving low-income subsidy had lower odds of discontinuation (0.66 [0.52-0.83]) and higher odds of adherence (1.52 [1.20-1.93]). Greater numbers of preindex evaluation and management physician visits and comorbid rhinitis were associated with lower odds of discontinuation and higher odds of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 60% of Medicare patients with asthma continued and were adherent to omalizumab over a 12-month follow-up. Patient age, low-income subsidy status, and the numbers of evaluation and management physician visits were among factors associated with treatment adherence and discontinuation.

Novel therapeutic targets for allergic airway disease in children

The aim of precision medicine is setting up targeted therapies for selected patients that would ideally have high effectiveness and few side effects. This is made possible by targeted therapy drugs that selectively act on a specific pathway. Precision medicine is spreading to many medical specialties, and there is increasing interest in the context of allergic airway diseases, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and asthma. This review is an update of new targets in the treatment of childhood allergic upper airway diseases and asthma, including the most recent biologic drugs that have already been licensed or are in the pipeline to be tested with children.

'Real-life' experience in asthmatic children treated with omalizumab up to six-years follow-up

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Omalizumab is present in international guidelines for the control of severe asthma, but data on the long-term effects in children are limited. Our objective was to perform a 'real-life' long-term trial of omalizumab in children with allergic asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational single center 'real-life' study was performed. Data for treatment, lung function, side effect, asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations were recorded at six months and annually.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients <18 years of age were enrolled. Median treatment period was 2.9 (0.5-6). Fluticasone dose for the maintenance treatment decreases significantly at six months (452mcg/day to 329.89mcg/day, respectively). This difference was maintained throughout the follow-up. Nobody used oral corticosteroid after six months. The rate of hospital admissions and visits to the emergency department for asthma exacerbations decreased significantly in the third years and fourth years follow-up, respectively. There was an improvement in lung function. Mean values of FEV₁ and FEF_25-75% before treatment were 79.88 and 62.94, respectively; after six months of treatment a statistically significant change was seen with a mean FEV₁ of 92.29 and FEF_25-75% of 76.31 (p=0.0001). Lung function values were above normal throughout the six years of treatment. No side effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall in 'real life' omalizumab in children reduces asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, improves lung function, and decreases the maintenance therapy. It is shown to be safe for up to six years of treatment in children.

Optimising treatment for severe asthma

The treatment landscape in severe asthma is changing rapidly, with multiple new therapies emerging that promise to transform patient outcomes. In a patient who is not responding to conventional therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists, it is important to first consider if the diagnosis of asthma is correct and, second, to reflect on whether readily modifiable factors are contributing to poor asthma control. In selected patients it may be appropriate to consider a modified n-of-1 trial of add-on therapies such as long-acting anti-muscarinic agents, leukotriene blockers, theophylline or low dose macrolide antibiotics. A number of monoclonal antibodies are now available that target the molecular pathways that contribute to asthma pathogenesis, and more such agents are likely to emerge in the near future. These biologicals can be transformative in selected patients, markedly reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations, and allowing many patients to reduce or eliminate their use of long term oral corticosteroids. If the promise of personalised treatment is to be fully realised, it is important that better methods are developed to target these new and expensive treatments to patients most likely to respond. The ultimate goal of inducing remission or cure of asthma is still some distance away.

Are biological drugs effective and safe in older severe asthmatics?

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of asthma in older ages follows the recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asthma in younger ages, although older age has always represented an exclusion criterion for eligibility to pharmacological trials. This poses a clinical challenge when deciding whether elderly severe asthmatics are candidates for biological drugs.

AREAS COVERED

The current article has a narrative structure to review the current literature on efficacy and safety of novel pharmacological drugs against immunoglobulins and interleukins that mediate and orchestrate the main inflammatory pathways in severe asthma, in order to explore whether older subjects (i.e. > 65 years of age) are included.

EXPERT OPINION

Asthma in older ages is not a rare entity, and loss of symptom control is common in most advanced ages. Current evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the safety of biological drugs in elderly asthmatics is scarce and does not allow drawing definitive conclusions. An urgent call for studies specifically designed for elderly populations is needed, with the purpose to assess the efficacy and safety of target biological therapies in advanced ages. We envision the design of large multi-center clinical trials to decide whether and when geriatric population could benefit from biological therapies.

Biological treatments for severe asthma: A major advance in asthma care

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with considerable variability noted in disease severity, patterns of airway inflammation, and achievement of disease control on current medications. An absence of disease control is most frequently noted in patients with severe asthma, and is defined as a lack of control while on high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a second controller medication. In part, this lack of control may relate to a diminished effect of current guideline-directed care on the existing pattern of airway inflammation in severe asthma. Airway inflammation in severe asthma has been arbitrarily divided into T (type) 2 high and T2 low. T2 high is characterized by the generation of key cytokines, interleukin (IL)-4, -5 and -13, which generate and regulate airway inflammation. Biomarkers to mark the presence of T2-high inflammation include eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and immunoglobulin (Ig) E, whose presence arises from the action of IgE, IL-5, IL-4, and IL-13. In this review, treatment of severe asthma with monoclonal antibodies, i.e. biologics, which are directed against these inflammation generated pathways are reviewed. The available monoclonal antibodies include omalizumab (anti-IgE); mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab (anti-IL-5 pathways), and dupilumab (anti-IL-4/IL-13). The use of these T2-high interventions has led to significant reductions in asthma symptoms, a decreased frequency of exacerbations, and improved lung function in many patients. Not only has the use of these monoclonal antibodies led to improved asthma control in patients with severe disease, their use has provided insight into mechanisms of severe asthma.

Asthma and Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Diagnosis and Medical Management

Asthma is a prevalent inflammatory condition of the lower airways characterized by variable and recurring symptoms, reversible airflow obstruction, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR). Symptomatically, these patients may demonstrate wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and coughing. This disease is a substantial burden to a growing population worldwide that currently exceeds 300 million individuals. This is a condition that is frequently encountered, but often overlooked in the field of otolaryngology. In asthma, comorbid conditions are routinely present and contribute to respiratory symptoms, decreased quality of life, and poorer asthma control. It is associated with otolaryngic diseases of the upper airways including allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). These conditions have been linked epidemiologically and pathophysiologically. Presently, they are considered in the context of the unified airway theory, which describes the upper and lower airways as a single functional unit. Thus, it is important for otolaryngologists to understand asthma and its complex relationships to comorbid diseases, in order to provide comprehensive care to these patients. In this article, we review key elements necessary for understanding the evaluation and management of asthma and its interrelatedness to CRS.

The use of biologics for immune modulation in allergic disease

The rising prevalence of allergies represents an increasing socioeconomic burden. A detailed understanding of the immunological mechanisms that underlie the development of allergic disease, as well as the processes that drive immune tolerance to allergens, will be instrumental in designing therapeutic strategies to treat and prevent allergic disease. Improved characterization of individual patients through the use of specific biomarkers and improved definitions of disease endotypes are paving the way for the use of targeted therapeutic approaches for personalized treatment. Allergen-specific immunotherapy and biologic therapies that target key molecules driving the Th2 response are already used in the clinic, and a wave of novel drug candidates are under development. In-depth analysis of the cells and tissues of patients treated with such targeted interventions provides a wealth of information on the mechanisms that drive allergies and tolerance to allergens. Here, we aim to deliver an overview of the current state of specific inhibitors used in the treatment of allergy, with a particular focus on asthma and atopic dermatitis, and provide insights into the roles of these molecules in immunological mechanisms of allergic disease.

Short- and long-term real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in severe allergic asthma: systematic review of 42 studies published 2008-2018

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a recombinant monoclonal anti-IgE antibody approved in the US as add-on treatment in moderate-to-severe allergic asthma (in severe allergic asthma [SAA] in Europe). A 2016 review of 24 real-world effectiveness studies in SAA published between 2008-2015 concluded that omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in objective and subjective outcomes with benefits extending beyond 2 years. Several new real-world studies have been published since, bringing the total to 42 studies. Areas covered: This systematic review of 42 studies published since 2008 updates and extends the 2016 review on the real-word evidence on omalizumab in SAA. It offers greater granularity as to time windows within which outcomes are reported and includes studies extending well beyond 4 years post omalizumab initiation. Expert commentary: This review firmly establishes the short-term effectiveness of omalizumab in adolescent and adult patients with SAA at 1 year, and provides strong evidence of long-term effectiveness up to 4 years and emergent evidence of effectiveness beyond 4 years. In the aggregate, these 42 studies underscore the long-term effectiveness of omalizumab in terms of: reducing exacerbations and symptoms, achieving asthma control, improving lung function, enhancing quality of life, decreasing emergency department visits and hospitalizations, and promoting concomitant medication-sparing.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of monoclonal antibodies for asthma treatment

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease. It occurs in a 'severe' form in about 8-10% of asthmatic patients. In the last decade, the development of biological drugs (e.g. monoclonal antibodies) allowed to efficiently approach severe asthma. The current therapeutic targets available are mainly those related to TH2 inflammation. Areas covered: The main pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the monoclonal antibodies against IL-5, IL-5Ra, IL4-IL13, and IgE, that are currently marketed or understood for severe asthma are discussed in this paper. Expert opinion: The currently available biological drugs represent an excellent therapeutic add-on to traditional drugs, especially in replacing systemic corticosteroid therapies. The different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the drugs, despite sometime sharing the same target, would allow a better personalization of the therapy, tailoring the treatment to the characteristics of the patient.