A randomized multicenter study evaluating Xolair persistence of response after long-term therapy

Clinical characteristics of complete responders versus non-complete responders to omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma: a long-term retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Some patients with severe asthma may benefit from treatment with biologics, but evidence has been mostly collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients' characteristics are different from those encountered in asthma patients in the real-world setting. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of complete responders versus non-complete responders to long-term treatment with biologics in patients with severe asthma attended in routine daily practice.

METHODS

Data of a cohort of 90 patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for at least 12 months and were followed up to March 2022. Data recorded included clinical characteristics and effectiveness of treatment (exacerbation, Asthma Control Test [ACT] score, lung function, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]), FeNO, and blood eosinophils at baseline, at 12 months, and at the end of follow-up. Complete response is considered if, in addition to not presenting exacerbations or the use of mOCS, the ACT score was >20 and, the FEV1 >80% predicted.

RESULTS

An improvement in all asthma control parameters was observed after 12 months of treatment and a mean follow-up of 55 months. After 12 months of treatment 27.2% of patients met the criteria of complete response and this percentage even increased to 35.3% at the end of follow-up. Long-term complete response was associated to better lung function with mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment and to less previous exacerbations in the benralizumab group. The main cause of not achieving a complete response was the persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab improved the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs in the long term follow-up. Airflow obstruction, however, was a predictor of a non-complete response to biologics.

Experts' Opinion on diagnosis and management of Severe Asthma, an Indian/Low and middle-income countries (LMIC) Perspective

Objective In this document, 9 Indian experts have evaluated the factors specific to LMICs when it came to Severe Asthma (SA) diagnosis, evaluation, biologic selection, non-biologic treatment options and follow-up.Data Sources A search was performed using 50 keywords., focusing on the Indian/LMICs perspective, in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The key areas of the search were focused on diagnosis, phenoendotyping, non-biological therapies, selecting a biologic, assessment of treatment response and management of exacerbation.Study Selections The initial search revealed 1826 articles, from these case reports, observational studies, cohort studies, non-English language papers etc were excluded and we short-listed 20 articles for each area. 5 relevant papers were selected by the experts for review.Results In LMICs SA patients may be referred to the specialist for evaluation a little late for Phenoendotyping of SA. While biologic therapy is now a standard of care, pulmonologists in LMICs may not have access to all the investigations to phenoendotype SA patients like Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), Skin prick test (SPT) etc., but phenotyping of SA patients can also be done with simple blood investigations, eosinophil count and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). Choosing a biologic in the overlapping phenotype of SA and ACO patients is also a challenge in the LMICs.Conclusion Given the limitations of LMIC, it is important to select the right patient and explain the potential benefits of biological therapy. Non-biologic add-on therapies can be attempted in a resource-limited setting where biological therapy is not available/feasible for patients.

Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control.

SUMMARY

Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered.

Biomarkers and clinical outcomes after tezepelumab cessation: Extended follow-up from the 2-year DESTINATION study

BACKGROUND

Long-term tezepelumab treatment in the DESTINATION study (NCT03706079) resulted in reduced asthma exacerbations, reduced biomarker levels, and improved lung function and symptom control in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the time course of changes in biomarkers and clinical manifestations after treatment cessation after 2 years of tezepelumab treatment.

METHODS

DESTINATION was a 2-year, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of tezepelumab treatment in patients (12-80 years old) with severe asthma. Patients received their last treatment doses at week 100 and could enroll in an extended follow-up period from weeks 104 to 140. Change over time in key biomarkers and clinical outcomes were assessed in tezepelumab vs placebo recipients for 40 weeks after stopping treatment.

RESULTS

Of 569 patients enrolled in the extended follow-up period, 426 were included in the analysis (289 received tezepelumab and 137 placebo). In the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose, blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 scores gradually increased from weeks 4 to 10, with a gradual reduction in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second such that blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and clinical outcomes returned to placebo levels; however, none of these outcomes returned to baseline levels. Total IgE levels increased later from week 28 and remained well below placebo and baseline levels during the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose.

CONCLUSION

This analysis reveals the benefits of continued tezepelumab treatment in the management of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, compared with stopping treatment after 2 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03706079.

Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Six biologic agents are now approved for patients with severe asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of licensed biologic agents in patients with severe asthma, including the recently approved tezepelumab.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify randomised controlled trials involving licensed biologics until 31 January 2023. We used random-effects meta-analysis models for efficacy, including subgroup analyses by individual agents and markers of T2-high inflammation (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide), and assessed safety.

RESULTS

48 studies with 16 350 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Biologics were associated with a 44% reduction in the annualised rate of asthma exacerbations (rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.62) and 60% reduction of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60), a mean increase in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 0.11 L (95% CI 0.09-0.14), a reduction in asthma control questionnaire by 0.34 points (95% CI -0.46--0.23) and an increase in asthma quality of life questionnaire by 0.38 points (95% CI 0.26-0.49). There was heterogeneity between different classes of biologics in certain outcomes, with overall greater efficacy in patients with T2 inflammation. Overall, biologics exhibited a favourable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that licensed asthma biologics reduce exacerbations and hospitalisations, improve lung function, asthma control and quality of life, and limit the use of systemic corticosteroids, with a favourable safety profile. These effects are more prominent in patients with evidence of T2 inflammation.

[Results of a survey on the current management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Germany]

INTRODUCTION

With a prevalence of 0.55% to 4%, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a relevant part of the daily work of German otolaryngologists. The aim of the questionnaire-based data collection was to assess the current treatment status of CRSwNP in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For this purpose, 24 questions within an anonymized online questionnaire were sent to all German ENT departments.

RESULTS

Of 160 contacted ENT departments, 50 participated in the survey (31.3%). Among these, 76% performed more than 100 sinus surgeries annually and 38% treated more than 50 patients with biologics. Saline irrigations (80%) and intranasal glucocorticoids (GCS, 96%) were the most common conservative therapies. Systemic GCSs (52%) and intranasal GCS irrigation (20%) were less common. 80% of departments used biologics in the therapy of CRSwNP with an overall preference for dupilumab (70%). For therapy of aspirin intolerance, biologics (52%) were preferred to aspirin desensitization (26%). Prior to treatment with biologics clinical workup included the nasal polyp score (90%), the SNOT-22 questionnaire (84%), surrogate markers of type 2 inflammation (60%-72%), and computer tomography (50%). Final treatment success was assessed after 24 weeks (50%).

CONCLUSION

Mostly, the responding departments followed German and European recommendations for diagnosis and therapy of CRSwNP. Therapy with biologics is widely used. The value of preoperative systemic GCS and the frequent performance of CT before initiation of therapy with a biologic should be debated in regard to its currently widespread use.

The Incredible Adventure of Omalizumab

The basis of our current understanding of allergies begins with the discovery of IgE in the mid-1960s. The whole theory of the physiology and pathophysiology of allergic diseases, including rhinitis and asthma, dates from that period. Among the key regions of IgE identified were the FAB (fragment antigen binding) portion that has the ability to capture allergens, and the Cε3 domain, through which IgE binds to its membrane receptor. It was then postulated that blocking IgE at the level of the Cε3 domain would prevent it from binding to its receptor and thus set in motion the allergic cascade. This was the beginning of the development of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody with an anti-IgE effect. In this article, we review the pathophysiology of allergic disease and trace the clinical development of omalizumab. We also review the benefits of omalizumab treatment that are apparently unrelated to allergies, such as its effect on immunity and bronchial remodeling.

Future of biologics in pediatric asthma: Optimizing response, early introduction, and equitable access to treatment

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current evidence, its limitations, and future research directions for the use of biologics in pediatric asthma, with a particular focus on the potential use of biologics to prevent pediatric asthma and equity issues in access to biologic treatment and research participation.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed articles about the use of biologics in pediatric asthma were searched up to May 2023.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Recent (2019-2023) original research articles and reviews were prioritized.

RESULTS

Although there are now 5 U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for use in pediatric asthma, there are important knowledge gaps that ongoing research seeks to address, which include (1) the long-term efficacy and safety of using biologics in children, (2) the comparative efficacy of different biologics, (3) multi-omics-based classification of asthma endotypes and phenotypes in children to find potential new therapeutic targets and enable identification and validation of new biomarkers that may predict and help monitor response to treatment, and (4) whether starting biologics in early childhood can modify the natural history of asthma and potentially prevent asthma development.

SUMMARY

To promote equitable access to biologics and optimize asthma outcomes, future research should recruit patients across the full spectrum of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Large-scale national and international collaborations between asthma researchers and clinicians are also necessary to fully understand the role of biologics in pediatric asthma.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Omalizumab Transitions in Severe Asthma: Factors Influencing Switching Decisions and Timing for Optimal Response

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of switching from omalizumab to another biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma and evaluate factors that influenced the decision to switch and determined the optimal time for a good biologic response.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of severe asthma patients was conducted at Al-Rashed Allergy Center, a tertiary center in Kuwait. After meeting the eligibility criteria, patients were divided into two comparative groups: those continuing with omalizumab and those who started with omalizumab but switched to another biologic.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients with severe asthma were recruited, and only 33 had access to multiple biological treatments. Approximately 22.4% switched from omalizumab. Male patients with a history of ischemic heart disease, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyps were more likely to switch if they had higher levels of eosinophils in the sputum. This study showed that every 1% increase in sputum eosinophils doubled the likelihood of a switch. Patients with access to alternative biological options had a much shorter mean duration of omalizumab therapy before switching compared to those with only affordable omalizumab: 4.9 ± 1.5 years versus 8.9 ± 1.3 years (p < 0.001). The optimal time to predict the likelihood of a good response was less than 5.5 years, with an area under the curve of 0.91 and p = 0.003. This cutoff point provided a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 89% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An early transition from omalizumab, specifically within the first 5 years of treatment, in patients with severe asthma and higher sputum eosinophils may enhance the likelihood of a good response if other biological therapies were available.

Update on the Role of FeNO in Asthma Management

Asthma is a heterogenous disorder characterized by presence of different phenotypes and endotypes. Up to 10% of the individuals suffer from severe asthma and are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a cost-effective, point of care biomarker that is used to detect type 2 airway inflammation. Guidelines have proposed to measure FeNO as an adjunct to diagnostic evaluation in individuals with suspected asthma and to monitor airway inflammation. FeNO has lower sensitivity, suggesting that it may not be a good biomarker to rule out asthma. FeNO may also be used to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids, predict adherence and deciding on biologic therapy. Higher levels of FeNO have been associated with lower lung function and increased risk for future asthma exacerbations and its predictive value increases when combined with other standard measurements of asthma assessment.

Influence of Genetics on the Response to Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma with an Allergic Phenotype

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma with an allergic phenotype. Its effectiveness could be influenced by clinical variables and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in one or more of the genes involved in the mechanism of action and process of response to omalizumab, and these could be used as predictive biomarkers of response. We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma treated with omalizumab in a tertiary hospital. Satisfactory response after 12 months of treatment was defined as (1) Reduction ≥ 50% of exacerbations or no exacerbations, (2) Improvement of lung function ≥ 10% FEV1, and (3) Reduction ≥ 50% of OCS courses or no OCS. Polymorphisms in the FCER1A (rs2251746, rs2427837), FCER1B (rs1441586, rs573790, rs1054485, rs569108), C3 (rs2230199), FCGR2A (rs1801274), FCGR2B (rs3219018, rs1050501), FCGR3A (rs10127939, rs396991), IL1RL1 (rs1420101, rs17026974, rs1921622), and GATA2 (rs4857855) genes were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using TaqMan probes. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were recruited. After 12 months of treatment, the variables associated with a reduction in exacerbations were the absence of polyposis (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95-19.63), IL1RL1 rs17026974-AG (OR = 19.07; 95% CI = 1.27-547), and IL1RL1 rs17026974-GG (OR = 16.76; 95% CI = 1.22-438.76). Reduction in oral corticosteroids (OCS) was associated with age of starting omalizumab treatment (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and blood eosinophil levels > 300 cells/µL (OR = 2.93; 95% CI = 1.01-9.29). Improved lung function showed a relationship to the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR = 12.16; 95% CI = 2.45-79.49), FCGR2B rs3219018-C (OR = 8.6; 95% CI = 1.12-117.15), GATA2 rs4857855-T (OR = 15.98; 95% CI = 1.52-519.57) and FCGR2A rs1801274-G (OR = 13.75; 95% CI = 2.14-142.68; AG vs. AA and OR = 7.46; 95% CI = 0.94-89.12; GG vs. AA). Meeting one response criterion was related to FCER1A rs2251746-TT (OR = 24; 95% CI = 0.77-804.57), meeting two to age of asthma diagnosis (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88-0.99), and meeting all three to body mass index (BMI) < 25 (OR = 14.23; 95% CI = 3.31-100.77) and C3 rs2230199-C (OR = 3; 95% CI = 1.01-9.92). The results of this study show the possible influence of the polymorphisms studied on the response to omalizumab and the clinical benefit that could be obtained by defining predictive biomarkers of treatment response.

A prediction model for asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the prediction of the risks of asthma exacerbation after stopping asthma biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics using machine learning models.

METHODS

We identified 3057 people with asthma who stopped asthma biologics in the OptumLabs Database Warehouse and considered a wide range of demographic and clinical risk factors to predict subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome used to assess success after stopping was having no exacerbations in the 6 months after stopping the biologic. Elastic-net logistic regression (GLMnet), random forest, and gradient boosting machine models were used with 10-fold cross-validation within a development (80%) cohort and validation cohort (20%).

RESULTS

The mean age of the total cohort was 47.1 (SD, 17.1) years, 1859 (60.8%) were women, 2261 (74.0%) were White, and 1475 (48.3%) were in the Southern region of the United States. The elastic-net logistic regression model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78) in the development and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The random forest model yielded an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The gradient boosting machine model yielded an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.74 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after stopping asthma biologics can be predicted with moderate accuracy using machine learning methods.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes

(1) Background: Over the past 20 years, monoclonal antibodies have been developed for the treatment of severe asthma, with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to define their safety and efficacy. The growing availability of biologics, which until now have only been available for T2-high asthma, has been further enriched by the arrival of tezepelumab. (2) Methods: This review aims to evaluate the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in RCTs of biologics for severe asthma to understand how they could potentially predict outcomes and how they can help differentiate between available options. (3) Results: The studies reviewed demonstrated that all biologic agents are effective in improving asthma control, especially with regard to reducing exacerbation rates and OCS use. As we have seen, in this regard, there are few data on omalizumab and none yet on tezepelumab. In analysing exacerbations and average doses of OCSs, pivotal studies on benralizumab have enrolled more seriously ill patients. Secondary outcomes, such as improvement in lung function and quality of life, showed better results-especially for dupilumab and tezepelumab. (4) Conclusion: Biologics are all effective, albeit with important differences. What fundamentally guides the choice is the patient's clinical history, the endotype represented by biomarkers (especially blood eosinophils), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis).

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.

Defining response to therapy with biologics in severe asthma: from global evaluation to super response and remission

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, monoclonal antibodies targeting Type-2 inflammatory pathways have been developed for severe asthma treatment. However, even when patients are carefully selected, the response to treatment varies.

AREAS COVERED

Different studies have evaluated response to therapy with biologics such as exacerbation reduction, symptom improvement, pulmonary function increase, improvement in QoL, or decrease of oral corticosteroids, showing that all patients do not respond to all disease aspects and leading to an extensive debate regarding the definition of response.

EXPERT OPINION

Assessing response to therapy is of great importance, but since there is no uniform definition of treatment response, the recognition of patients who really benefit from these therapies remains an unmet need. In the same context, identifying non-responding patients in which biologic therapy should be switched or substituted by alternative treatment options is of paramount importance. In this review, we present the road trip of the definition of therapeutic response to biologics in severe asthmatics by presenting the current relevant medical literature. We also present the suggested predictors of response, with an emphasis on the so-called super-responders. Finally, we discuss the recent insights regarding asthma remission as a feasible treatment goal and provide a simple algorithm for the evaluation of response.

Biologics for severe asthma: The real-world evidence, effectiveness of switching, and prediction factors for the efficacy

Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized controlled trials have established clinical evidence, but a significant portion of patients with severe asthma in real-life settings would have been excluded from those trials. Therefore, real-world research is necessary, and there is a growing body of information about the long-term efficacy and safety of biologics. Multiple clinical phenotypes of severe asthma exist, and it is crucial to choose patients based on their phenotypes. Blood eosinophil count is an important biomarker for anti-IL-5 therapies, and FeNO and eosinophil counts serve as prediction markers for dupilumab. Reliable markers for predicting response, however, have not yet been fully established for omalizumab. Identification of clinical or biological prediction factors is crucial for the path toward clinical remission because the current treatment goal includes clinical remission, which is defined as a realistic goal for remission off treatment. Additionally, since there are now multiple biologic options and overlaps in eligibility for biologics in clinical practice, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of switching the biologics is crucial. Investigations into the clinical trajectory following the cessation of biologics are another important issue. Recent research on omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab's real-world effectiveness, the prediction factor for the efficacy, and the impact of switching or discontinuation will be reviewed and discussed in this review.

Therapeutical Targets in Allergic Inflammation

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

Critical evaluation of asthma biomarkers in clinical practice

The advent of personalized medicine has revolutionized the whole approach to the management of asthma, representing the essential basis for future developments. The cornerstones of personalized medicine are the highest precision in diagnosis, individualized prediction of disease evolution, and patient-tailored treatment. To this aim, enormous efforts have been established to discover biomarkers able to predict patients' phenotypes according to clinical, functional, and bio-humoral traits. Biomarkers are objectively measured characteristics used as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or clinical responses to specific therapeutic interventions. The diagnosis of type-2 asthma, prediction of response to type-2 targeted treatments, and evaluation of the risk of exacerbation and lung function impairment have been associated with biomarkers detectable either in peripheral blood or in airway samples. The surrogate nature of serum biomarkers, set up to be less invasive than sputum analysis or bronchial biopsies, has shown several limits concerning their clinical applicability. Routinely used biomarkers, like peripheral eosinophilia, total IgE, or exhaled nitric oxide, result, even when combined, to be not completely satisfactory in segregating different type-2 asthma phenotypes, particularly in the context of severe asthma where the choice among different biologics is compelling. Moreover, the type-2 low fraction of patients is not only an orphan of biological treatments but is at risk of being misdiagnosed due to the low negative predictive value of type-2 high biomarkers. Sputum inflammatory cell analysis, considered the highest specific biomarker in discriminating eosinophilic inflammation in asthma, and therefore elected as the gold standard in clinical trials and research models, demonstrated many limits in clinical applicability. Many factors may influence the measure of these biomarkers, such as corticosteroid intake, comorbidities, and environmental exposures or habits. Not least, biomarkers variability over time is a confounding factor leading to wrong clinical choices. In this narrative review, we try to explore many aspects concerning the role of routinely used biomarkers in asthma, applying a critical view over the "state of the art" and contemporarily offering an overview of the most recent evidence in this field.

Investigational approaches for unmet need in severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Molecular antibodies (mAb) targeting inflammatory mediators are effective in T2-high asthma. The recent approval of Tezepelumab presents a novel mAb therapeutic option to those with T2-low asthma.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss a number of clinical problems pertinent to severe asthma which are less responsive to current therapies, such as persistent airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness. We discuss selected investigational approaches, including a number of candidate therapies under investigation in two adaptive platform trials currently in progress, with particular reference to this unmet need, as well as their potential in phenotypes such as neutrophilic asthma and obese asthma, which may or may not overlap with a T2-high phenotype.

EXPERT OPINION

The application of discrete targeting approaches to T2-low molecular phenotypes, including those phenotypes in which inflammation may not arise within the airway, has yielded variable results to date. Endotypes associated with T2-low asthma are likely to be diverse but await validation. Investigational therapeutic approaches must, likewise, be diverse if the goal of remission is to become attainable for all those living with asthma.

Predictive biomarkers for response to omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Predicting omalizumab treatment response has been a challenge and significant aspect for selecting suitable severe allergic asthma patients for omalizumab use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which domains of pretreatment baseline characteristics predict omalizumab treatment response among asthmatic patients.

METHODS

Electronic bases were searched for eligible studies that reported potential biomarkers that could predict omalizumab responsiveness and efficacy. Patients who accepted omalizumab treatment were stratified into responders and non-responders. WMD, OR, and their 95%CI were used to access the differences between those omalizumab receivers. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted for potential heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies evaluating efficacy predictors of omalizumab were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that omalizumab responders had significantly younger age in the adult subgroup, higher pretreatment total serum IgE level, percent predicted FEV₁ and FeNO than that non-responder. We further confirmed that higher blood eosinophil counts and total serum IgE levels are useful markers for selecting asthma patients who may benefit more from omalizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-treatment blood eosinophil counts and total serum IgE level can be a useful efficacy predictor in selecting allergic asthma patients for omalizumab treatment.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

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

A pragmatic guide to choosing biologic therapies in severe asthma

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

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

Use of biologics for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma: the age of personalized medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are multiple FDA-approved biologics to treat poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Given the heterogeneity of asthma and the lack of head-to-head data between biologics, selecting the best biologic for a patient can be difficult. This review summarizes the key literature to date, in hopes of facilitating an evidence-based approach to selecting the most appropriate biologic for patients with asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to unique mechanisms of action, there is increasing literature on predictors of response to each biologic, such as sensitizations to aeroallergens, peripheral eosinophil count, total serum IgE, and exhaled nitric oxide. Biologics available for asthma are also being increasingly studied in comorbid conditions with asthma, and this may facilitate selecting the most appropriate biologic for a patient. In the absence of head-to-head studies, there is literature of switching between biologics whenever necessary.

SUMMARY

The authors outline an approach to selecting a biologic based on various considerations, and hope this suggested approach facilitates selecting the biologic most suitable for each individual with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody that was globally approved as a personalized treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This review summarizes the knowledge of almost two decades of use of omalizumab to answer some important everyday clinical practice questions, concerning its efficacy and safety and its association with other asthma-related and drug-related parameters. Evidence suggests that omalizumab improves asthma control and reduces the incidence and frequency of exacerbations in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is also effective in those patients in reducing corticosteroid use and healthcare utilization, while it also seems to improve lung function. Several biomarkers have been recognized in predicting its efficacy in its target group of patients, while the optimal duration for evaluating its efficacy is between 16 and 32 weeks.

Health outcomes after stopping long-term mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: COMET

Asthma worsening and symptom control are clinically important health outcomes in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. This analysis of COMET evaluated whether stopping versus continuing long-term mepolizumab therapy impacted these outcomes.

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with ≥3 years continuous mepolizumab treatment (via COLUMBA (NCT01691859) or COSMEX (NCT02135692) open-label studies) were eligible to enter COMET (NCT02555371), a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomised 1:1 to continue mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks or to stop mepolizumab, plus standard of care asthma treatment. Patients could switch to open-label mepolizumab following an exacerbation. Health outcome endpoints included time to first asthma worsening (composite endpoint: rescue use, symptoms, awakening at night and morning peak expiratory flow (PEF)), patient and clinician assessed global rating of asthma severity and overall perception of response to therapy, and unscheduled healthcare resource utilisation.

Patients who stopped mepolizumab showed increased risk of and shorter time to first asthma worsening compared with those who continued mepolizumab (hazard ratio (HR) 1.71; 95% CI 1.17–2.52; p=0.006), including reduced asthma control (increased risk of first worsening in rescue use (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.00–1.84; p=0.047) and morning PEF (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.21–2.59; p=0.003). There was a higher probability of any unscheduled healthcare resource use (HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.31–2.49; p<0.001), and patients and clinicians reported greater asthma severity and less favourable perceived response to therapy for patients who stopped versus continued mepolizumab.

These data suggest that patients with severe eosinophilic asthma continuing long-term mepolizumab treatment sustain clinically important improvements in health outcomes.

The COMET study investigated whether stopping long-term mepolizumab had an impact on health outcomes in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma; data suggest those who continue long-term mepolizumab treatment sustain clinically important improvementshttps://bit.ly/3A0bvwu

Utilizing Predictive Inflammatory Markers for Guiding the Use of Biologicals in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction. Up to ten percent of asthmatics have severe asthma, and many remain uncontrolled despite optimal medical management. With our increased understanding of the heterogeneity of asthma and its complex pathophysiology, several biomarkers have been developed and in the recent past, several biologic therapies for severe asthma have been developed and are now in widespread use. Although these biological agents have shown great benefit in treating severe asthma, not all patients respond equally well, and some do not derive any benefit. As much of the current literature of these medications have not assessed biomarkers or have used different cutoffs, it is often challenging to decide the best medication for an individual patient. Here, we review common asthma subtypes, current available biologic therapies for asthma, the clinical application of currently available type 2 biomarkers, as well as summarizing the evidence on how patient characteristics and biomarkers can help with choosing the optimal biologic for a patient that has the highest likelihood of success.

Pediatric usage of Omalizumab: A promising one

Allergic and related diseases have a substantial epidemiological impact on the pediatric population. Small molecule-based medicines have been traditionally used to manage the diseases. Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody-based medicine used in children's allergy and shows great promises. It binds to free IgE and prevents it from binding to IgE receptors, thus interrupting the IgE-dependent allergic inflammatory cascade. Vast amounts of data demonstrate its effectiveness and well tolerance by patients, including the children. However, the drug was only approved to use in allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), though other applications were explored in clinical trials. In this review, we summarized current pediatric applications of omalizumab in allergic diseases, focusing on its usages beyond asthma and CSU, including allergic rhinitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, food allergy and atopic dermatitis. In addition, we highlighted the unmet needs and controversial issues of anti-IgE therapy.

•

Omalizumab, the first monoclonal antibody-based medicine used in children's allergy, shows great promise.

•

Omalizumab is effective in relieving symptoms associated with almost every children's allergic and related diseases beyond asthma and CSU.

•

There are unmet needs and controversial issues of anti-IgE therapy in allergic and related diseases.

Advances and Challenges of Antibody Therapeutics for Severe Bronchial Asthma

Asthma is a disease that consists of three main components: airway inflammation, airway hyperresponsiveness, and airway remodeling. Persistent airway inflammation leads to the destruction and degeneration of normal airway tissues, resulting in thickening of the airway wall, decreased reversibility, and increased airway hyperresponsiveness. The progression of irreversible airway narrowing and the associated increase in airway hyperresponsiveness are major factors in severe asthma. This has led to the identification of effective pharmacological targets and the recognition of several biomarkers that enable a more personalized approach to asthma. However, the efficacies of current antibody therapeutics and biomarkers are still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. The establishment of an ideal phenotype classification that will predict the response of antibody treatment is urgently needed. Here, we review recent advancements in antibody therapeutics and novel findings related to the disease process for severe asthma.

Considering biomarkers in asthma disease severity

Amongst patients with asthma, reliance on the type/dose of prescribed medication and symptom control does not adequately capture those at risk of adverse outcomes, and we need biomarkers for risk and treatment stratification which are consistently accurate, readily quantifiable and reproducible. The majority of patients with severe asthma, regardless of age, have predominant type-2 (T2) inflammation mediated disease, making airway/blood eosinophils, FeNO, periostin and/or allergic sensitization potentially important biomarkers for severe disease. In both adult and pediatric asthma, there is scope to improve prediction of severe attacks by using a composite T2 biomarkers of blood eosinophils and FeNO. Technological advances in component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) microarray technologies coupled with the development of interpretation software offer a possibility to use CRD as biomarkers of asthma severity amongst sensitized asthmatics. Genetic predisposition and polygenic risk scores of relevant traits (e.g., lung function, host immune responses, biomarkers of exposure from the indoor and outdoor environment, infection and microbial dysbiosis) may also contribute to prediction algorithms. We challenge the idea that asthma can be accurately defined in an individual patient by a discrete and static "endotype" (e.g., T2-high asthma). As we traverse the new era of molecular endotyping in asthma, we need to understand how relevant mechanisms impact patient outcomes, and in parallel develop new tools and approaches to stratify therapies and define individual patient trajectories.

Feasibility of Discontinuing Biologics in Severe Asthma: An Algorithmic Approach

In severe asthma with type 2 (T2) inflammation, biologics targeting key mediators of T2 inflammation, including interleukin (IL)-5, IL-4/IL-13, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E, remarkably improve the management of severe asthma, providing new insights into the clinical course of asthma such as disease modification and broad modulation of T2 inflammation. Once severe asthma has become a “controllable” condition, the question of discontinuation of biologics arises due to cost and side effects. The studies on discontinuing biologics in asthma demonstrate that some of patients successfully discontinue biologics, indicating that it is a feasible option in a subset of patients. Incorporating the evidence of discontinuation, we propose the criteria for the discontinuation of biologics. Our proposed criteria for the discontinuation of biologics consist of an absence of asthma symptoms (asthma control questionnaire [ACQ] score < 1.5 or asthma control test [ACT] score > 19), no asthma exacerbations, no use of oral corticosteroids, normalized spirometry (forced exhaled volume in 1 second [FEV₁] ≥ 80%), suppressed T2 inflammation (blood eosinophil counts < 300 μL and fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] < 50 ppb), and control of asthma comorbidities. Real-world evidence verified a subset of patients achieving highly well-controlled conditions after use of biologics, namely super-responders, who are candidates for the discontinuation of biologics. If super-responders meet all of the criteria, they are allowed to discontinue biological therapies. Our proposed algorithm may support physicians’ treatment decisions for patients receiving biologics.

The use of biologics in personalized asthma care

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Biological therapies targeting the type 2 inflammatory pathway in severe asthma (Review)

Asthma is a variable chronic respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, bronchoconstriction, and mucus hypersecretion. While most patients with asthma achieve good control of the disease, 5-10% experience severe symptoms and recurrent exacerbation despite the maximal offered therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long acting bronchodilators. In previous years, novel biological therapies have become available, and various asthma phenotypes that are characterized by specific biomarkers have been identified. Currently approved biological agents target inflammatory molecules of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, and are effective at decreasing the frequency of asthma attacks, controlling symptoms and decreasing use of systemic steroids. The present study reviewed the effectiveness and safety profile of the currently approved biological drugs and provided an overview of the assessment of patients with severe asthma who are potentially suitable for biological therapy, in order to help clinicians to select the most appropriate biological agent.

New Treatments for Asthma

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous chronic airway disease with high prevalence of uncontrolled disease. New therapies, including biologics, are now available to treat T2 high asthma. Treatment of T2 low asthma remains a challenge. Asthma guidelines need be to updated to incorporate new therapeutics.

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

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

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

The present prevailing inflammatory paradigm in asthma is of T2-high inflammation orchestrated by key inflammatory cells like Type 2 helper lymphocytes, innate lymphoid cells group 2 and associated cytokines. Eosinophils are key components of this T2 inflammatory pathway and have become key therapeutic targets. Real-world evidence on the predominant T2-high nature of severe asthma is emerging. Various inflammatory biomarkers have been adopted in clinical practice to aid asthma characterization including airway measures such as bronchoscopic biopsy and lavage, induced sputum analysis, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Blood measures like eosinophil counts have also gained widespread usage and multicomponent algorithms combining different parameters are now appearing. There is also growing interest in potential future biomarkers including exhaled volatile organic compounds, micro RNAs and urinary biomarkers. Additionally, there is a growing realisation that asthma is a heterogeneous state with numerous phenotypes and associated treatable traits. These may show particular inflammatory patterns and merit-specific management approaches that could improve asthma patient outcomes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma management but their use earlier in the course of disease is being advocated. Recent evidence suggests potential roles for ICS in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) for as needed use in mild asthma whilst maintenance and reliever therapy regimes have gained widespread acceptance. Other anti-inflammatory strategies including ultra-fine particle ICS, leukotriene receptor antagonists and macrolide antibiotics may show efficacy in particular phenotypes too. Monoclonal antibody biologic therapies have recently entered clinical practice with significant impacts on asthma outcomes. Understanding of the efficacy and use of those agents is becoming clearer with a growing body of real-world evidence as is their potential applicability to other treatable comorbid traits. In conclusion, the evolving understanding of T2 driven inflammation alongside a treatable traits disease model is enhancing therapeutic approaches to address inflammation in asthma.

Biological therapy for severe asthma

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Stopping versus continuing long-term mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma (COMET study)

Background

The long-term efficacy and safety of mepolizumab for treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are well established. Here, we examine the clinical impact of stopping mepolizumab after long-term use.

Methods

COMET (NCT02555371) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study. Patients who had completed COLUMBA (NCT01691859) or COSMEX (NCT02135692) and received continuous mepolizumab treatment for ≥3 years were randomised 1:1 to stop (switch to placebo) or continue subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Primary end-point: time to first clinically significant exacerbation; secondary end-points: time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit, time to decrease in asthma control (≥0.5-point increase in Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score from COMET baseline) and blood eosinophil count ratio to COMET baseline. Safety was assessed.

Results

Patients stopping (n=151) versus continuing (n=144) mepolizumab had significantly shorter times to first clinically significant exacerbation (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.17–2.22; p=0.004) and decrease in asthma control (hazard ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.13–2.02; p=0.005), and higher blood eosinophil counts at week 52 (270 versus 40 cells·µL⁻¹; ratio (stopping versus continuing) 6.19, 95% CI 4.89–7.83; p<0.001). Differences in efficacy outcomes between groups were observed when assessed from week 12 (16 weeks after last mepolizumab dose). Exacerbations requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit were rare. Adverse events in patients continuing mepolizumab were consistent with previous studies. For patients who stopped mepolizumab, the safety profile was consistent with other eosinophilic asthma populations.

Conclusion

Patients who stopped mepolizumab had an increase in exacerbations and reduced asthma control versus those who continued.

This randomised study demonstrates increased exacerbation risk and a decrease in asthma control in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who stop mepolizumab treatment after long-term use, when compared with those who continue treatment.https://bit.ly/3fsxGV2

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

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

Precision Medicine for Paediatric Severe Asthma: Current Status and Future Direction

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, characterised by different phenotypes and endotypes. Precision medicine in asthma refers to the implementation of a targeted therapy for each individual child, based on the identification of treatable traits, including environmental, immunological and genetic factors. Severe asthma in children is associated with increased hospitalisation rates, a lower quality of life, increased healthcare costs and an increased mortality. In the era of new molecular biologics treatments, it is essential to improve deep phenotyping of children with severe asthma in order to deliver the most effective treatment to each individual child. In this review, we discuss the personalised approach to the assessment and management of severe asthma. We explore the indications and use of the currently licensed biologics, as well as the potential of other emerging treatments.

Persistence of asthma biologic use in a US claims database

BACKGROUND

Little is known on the persistence of asthma biologic use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the persistence of asthma biologic use and time to clinical response in clinical practice.

METHODS

A cohort of people with asthma who used at least 1 asthma biologic was constructed using data from 2003 to 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Treatment persistence was defined by the length of time that a person continuously used an asthma biologic, allowing for a lapse in use up to 4 months before confirming that a person stopped. Clinical response to treatment (defined as a decline in asthma exacerbations of at least 50% compared with the 6 months before starting an asthma biologic) was described over time and in relation to biologic persistence.

RESULTS

There were 9575 people who had at least 1 episode of asthma biologic use. There were 5319 people (64%, 95% confidence interval, 63%-65%) who completed 6 months or more on an asthma biologic and 3284 (45%, 95% confidence interval, 44%-46%) who completed 12 months or more. Of people with 1 or more asthma exacerbation 6 months before index biologic use, 63%, 76%, 80%, and 81% realized a 50% or more reduction in postindex asthma exacerbations in the first 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and 18 to 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Between 48% and 64% of people remained on an asthma biologic for 6 months or more after first use. Most people who achieved a reduction in asthma exacerbations did so in the first 6 months of treatment.

Clinical effects and immune modulation of biologics in asthma

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