Real-World Effectiveness of Mepolizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Exploring the Interaction between Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Biologic Treatment in Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a biomarker of airway inflammation associated with airway hyper-responsiveness and type-2 inflammation. Its role in the management of severe asthmatic patients undergoing biologic treatment, as well as FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment, is largely unexplored.

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate published data contributing to the following areas: (1) FeNO as a predictive biomarker of response to biologic treatment; (2) the influence of biologic treatment in FeNO values; (3) FeNO as a biomarker for the prediction of exacerbations in patients treated with biologics.

METHODS

The systematic search was conducted on the Medline database through the Pubmed search engine, including all studies from 2009 to the present.

RESULTS

Higher baseline values of FeNO are associated with better clinical control in patients treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab. FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment highlights a clear reduction in FeNO values in patients treated with anti-IL4/13 and anti-IL13, as well as in patients treated with tezepelumab. During the treatment, FeNO may help to predict clinical worsening and to differentiate eosinophilic from non-eosinophilic exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher baseline FeNO levels appear to be associated with a greater benefit in terms of clinical control and reduction of exacerbation rate, while FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment remains a largely unexplored issue since few studies have investigated it as a primary outcome. FeNO remains detectable during biologic treatment, but its potential utility as a biomarker of clinical control is still unclear and represents an interesting research area to be developed.

A retrospective observational study on pheno-endotypes of severe asthma among adults attending asthma clinic in a tertiary care centre in India

Background and Objective

Severe asthma phenotyping based on invasive and non-invasive bio-markers assists in a better understanding of heterogeneity of clinical presentations and thereby using targeted therapies. Therefore, the current study was conducted to evaluate phenotypes based on non-invasive bio-markers of severe asthma patients attending a tertiary care hospital in North India.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational study conducted on the patients who visited the respiratory department of a tertiary care hospital in North India. Patients aged 18 years and above diagnosed with severe asthma were classified into distinct phenotypes, namely, atopic asthma, eosinophilic asthma, and Type 2 low asthma. Patients with their clinical and functional parameters were classified based on the levels of bio-chemical and hematological results [such as total/specific IgE, blood absolute eosinophil count (AEC)], skin prick tests, history of allergy, and the presence of allergic symptoms.

Results

Out of total 100 severe asthmatics, the majority of the patients had an eosinophilic asthma (49%) phenotype, followed by atopic (allergic) asthma (36%) and Type 2 low asthma (15%) phenotypes. However, it was found that 29% of these patients had overlap of both atopy and eosinophilia. The atopic phenotype showed allergic symptoms, positive skin prick tests, and elevated IgE levels. The eosinophilic phenotype had high AEC (≥300 cells/uL) and low IgE (< 30 IU/ml) levels. The Type 2 low phenotype showed low AEC and IgE levels along with the absence of allergic symptoms. However, among these 100 patients, overlapping traits of both atopy and eosinophilia were labelled as overlap phenotypes. 50% of type 2 low severe asthma cases had eosinophils >150 cells/cmm and were eligible for mepolizumab.

Conclusions

Identification of severe asthma pheno-endotypes based on simple non-invasive bio-markers is feasible in Indian settings, and it is of utmost importance for future treatment planning in these patients with available biologicals. Overlap of eosinophilic and atopic endotypes in one-third cases would challenge physicians to choose upfront appropriate biologicals in our country. Type 2 low asthma was least common with only <10% cases of severe asthma being ineligible for any biological.

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.

Reduction in asthma exacerbation rate after mepolizumab treatment initiation in patients with severe asthma: A real-world database study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the changes in asthma exacerbation, as well as in oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, exacerbation-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs before and after mepolizumab treatment initiation in patients with severe asthma who started treatment with mepolizumab in a real-world clinical setting in Japan.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, self-controlled study was conducted in Japan using a hospital-based administrative claims database. Patients who were diagnosed with asthma and who were new users of mepolizumab were included in the study. The primary outcome was the incidence rate of any asthma exacerbation/patient-year during the 12-month period before (baseline period) and after (follow-up period) the first mepolizumab prescription. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients with ≥1 any asthma exacerbation, patients with exacerbation requiring hospitalization, the incidence rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization/patient-year, the median daily OCS dose (OCS sparing effect), exacerbation-related HRU (hospitalization length, the proportion of patients with emergency visits, and the number of emergency/outpatient visits), and associated costs.

RESULTS

Of the 377 patients included, 56.2% were ≥65 years of age. Following the first mepolizumab prescription, incidence rates for any asthma exacerbation were reduced by 40.6% (4.00/patient-year to 2.38/patient-year; the incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.60 [0.53-0.67]; p < 0.0001) from the baseline to follow-up periods. The incidence rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization was reduced by 55.8% (0.37/patient-year to 0.16/patient-year) from the baseline to follow-up periods. The proportion of patients experiencing any exacerbation decreased from 84.4% to 57.8% and those requiring hospitalization decreased from 23.9% to 10.3% both from the baseline to follow-up periods. The median daily OCS dose decreased by 44.6% (median [interquartile range]: 6.7 [4.7-9.9] mg/day to 3.3 [0.9-5.6] mg/day) from the last baseline quarter to the 4th quarter of the follow-up period. All exacerbation-related HRUs decreased from the baseline to follow-up periods. Inpatient cost reduced by >50% (123,279 Japanese Yen [JPY]/patient-year vs. 57,283 JPY/patient-year), reducing the total cost by 80,716 JPY from the baseline to follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

Mepolizumab was effective in treating patients with severe asthma by reducing the incidence rates of exacerbations and exacerbation requiring hospitalization, OCS dose, exacerbation-related HRU, and cost in routine clinical practice in Japan.

The Clinical Efficacy of Type 2 Inflammation-Specific Agents Targeting Interleukins in Reducing Exacerbations in Severe Asthma: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Monoclonal antibodies against type 2 inflammatory pathways are currently promising therapeutics for severe asthma. The aim of this study was to determine how well type 2 (T2) inflammation-specific agents targeting interleukins reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations (AE) in patients with severe asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The primary outcome was the reduction rate of annualized AEs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 17 studies comprising 11800 subjects. A total of 6197 patients received T2-specific agents (benralizumab, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and tralokinumab). Overall, T2-specific agents were significantly associated with a lower risk of AE, compared with placebo [rate ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.66]. Among all studied agents, only tralokinumab did not demonstrate a reduction in AE. The efficacy of T2-specific agents in reducing AE was maintained regardless of the pathway used. A subgroup analysis indicated that T2-specific agents further reduced the risk of AE in patients with eosinophil counts of ≥300 cells/µL (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that T2-specific agents are significantly associated with a reduced rate of AE, compared with placebo. Their efficacy appears to be enhanced in patients with eosinophil counts of ≥300 cells/µL.

Oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) have long been a mainstay of treatment for asthma exacerbations and chronic severe asthma. However, it is increasingly recognized that both long-term and short-term OCS use are directly associated with a wide range of serious adverse effects, and as such OCS-sparing treatment alternatives are now widely recommended for patients with severe asthma. While several international guidelines recommend these treatments, guidance on OCS tapering, and which patients are most likely to tolerate OCS reduction and/or discontinuation, is still lacking. Several biologics have demonstrated efficacy in patients with OCS-dependent asthma. One OCS-sparing treatment is the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. In addition to improved exacerbation rates, asthma control, quality of life, and lung function among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, mepolizumab also has an OCS-sparing effect, which has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies. Both physicians and patients express concerns about the adverse effects of OCS, and additional data from the randomized, controlled SIRIUS trial (NCT01691508) highlight the high level of concern among patients regarding OCS-related burden. In this article, we discuss current guidance on OCS-sparing strategies for patients with severe asthma, provide a summary of the available evidence of the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab, and highlight patient and physician perspectives on the use of OCS and OCS-sparing treatments in severe asthma.

Real-life effectiveness of mepolizumab in severe asthma: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in randomized controlled trials is well established. Following approval of mepolizumab as add-on therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma in multiple regions worldwide, it is now important to determine its impact in real-world settings in which patients are not subject to stringent eligibility criteria. This systematic literature review assessed published evidence of clinical outcomes, safety, and healthcare resource use among patients with severe asthma receiving mepolizumab in real-world settings.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process via Ovid.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Eligible studies were observational, and enrolled ≥10 patients with asthma who received mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously. Data extracted included annualized exacerbation rate, mean daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, proportion of patients using OCS, several measures of lung function, patient-reported asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety, and economic burden.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles (22 unique studies; 2,040 patients with severe asthma on mepolizumab) were identified. Mepolizumab use was associated with a reduction in annualized exacerbation rates (requiring OCS) of 54-97% (p < 0.05 in all studies), reduced mean/median daily OCS doses, and OCS discontinuation during follow-up (27-84% of patients). Improvements in lung function, asthma control, and HRQoL were also observed. The most commonly reported adverse events included headache and arthralgia; discontinuation of mepolizumab due to adverse events occurred in 0-10.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Findings show that patients with severe asthma consistently demonstrate clinically relevant benefits with mepolizumab treatment in a real-world setting.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at at www.tandfonline.com/ijas .

Saudi Arabian real-life experience with biologic therapy in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma (SA) is a common health problem associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high medical costs. Biological therapies have emerged in recent decades as promising treatment options for patients with high type 2 (T2) SA. This retrospective observational study from Saudi Arabia aimed to investigate the effects of additional biologics therapy on reducing oral corticosteroid (OCS) consumption, frequency of asthma exacerbations, improvement in lung function, and asthma control.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study enrolled a cohort of 97 patients from March 2019 to February 2021. Outcomes of anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, and anti-IL4R therapies in severe type 2 asthma were recorded and analyzed in terms of number of exacerbations (emergency visits or hospitalizations required), asthma symptoms, and use of oral corticosteroids, blood eosinophil count, asthma control according to GINA classification, and FEV1 before and during biologic therapy.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were included in the analysis The mean age was 46.7±14.1 years, and 69.1% of them were female. The average duration of biological treatment was 16.4±6.8 months. At the time of data collection, the four biologic therapies reduced the exacerbation rate per year from 82/97 (84.5%) to 14/97 (14.4%) with a percent improvement of 83% from 2.9 per year in the year before biologic treatment to 1.6 per year (p<0.001). OCS was reduced from 75/97 (77.3%) to 10/97 (10.3%) for a percent improvement of 86.7%, and the average OCS dose decreased from 7.12 mg to 6.8 mg. Mean blood eosinophil count also decreased after biologic therapy from 750.5±498.5 to 188.0±122.4 cells/μl, most significant result achieved with benralizumab, and mean FEV1 improved from 59.0±12.9% to 76.0±10.2%, most significant result achieved with omalizumab. ll patients had uncontrolled asthma before biologics therapy, but asthma control improved by 91.8% after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologic as add-on therapy for high T2 SA was found to reduce asthma exacerbations, systemic glucocorticoid doses, and SA symptoms.