Severe asthma in the US population and eligibility for mAb therapy

Smaller Differences in the Comparative Effectiveness of Biologics in Reducing Asthma-Related Hospitalizations Compared With Overall Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of respiratory biologics remains sparse.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in a matched retrospective cohort of patients with asthma.

METHODS

We identified patients with asthma aged ≥18 years who were incident users of these biologics between November 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023, in administrative claims data from the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database. We compared asthma-related exacerbations and hospitalizations in the 12 months since biologic prescription in pairwise comparisons of propensity score-matched cohorts. Covariates used in matching included age, sex, allergic comorbidities, baseline asthma medications use, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients on mepolizumab, 1300 on benralizumab, 1170 on omalizumab, and 1863 on dupilumab were identified. The average age was 55 years, and two-thirds of the participants were female. At baseline, over 80% of these individuals had an active prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Almost half of patients on dupilumab had concomitant nasal polyposis compared with 6% to 13% of patients on the other biologics. Covariates were balanced after matching. In matched analyses, dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of exacerbations over the follow-up period (vs dupilumab): mepolizumab (IRR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.64), omalizumab (IRR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.58), benralizumab (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41). For exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, benralizumab and mepolizumab were associated with the lowest incidence of hospitalizations, and the greatest difference was between mepolizumab versus dupilumab (IRR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of overall exacerbations, and mepolizumab with the lowest incidence of asthma hospitalizations in this administrative claims-based cohort of individuals with asthma. Despite matching propensity scores, residual confounding, such as baseline eosinophil count, may explain some of these findings.

Ratio of plasma IL-13/TNF- ∝ and CXCL10/CCL17 predicts mepolizumab and omalizumab response in asthma better than eosinophil count or immunoglobulin E level

To date, most studies to identify biomarkers associated with response to the anti-interleukin 5 agent, mepolizumab, and to the anti-immunoglobulin E agent, omalizumab have focused on clinically available biomarkers, such as the peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and total immunoglobulin E (IgE). However, these biomarkers often have low predictive accuracy, with many patients with eosinophilic or allergic asthma failing to demonstrate clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab respectively. In this study, we evaluated the association of baseline pre-biologic plasma levels of 26 cytokines and chemokines, including T-helper 1 (Th1)-, Th2-, Th17-related cytokines, and their ratios with subsequent clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab. We defined clinical response as a reduction in the baseline annual exacerbation rate by half or more over the one-year period following initiation of the biologic. Baseline levels of plasma IL-13 were differentially elevated in responders versus non-responders to mepolizumab and plasma CXCL10 levels were differentially elevated in responders to omalizumab. The ratio of IL-13/TNF-α had the best sensitivity and specificity in predicting response to mepolizumab and CXCL10/CCL17 to omalizumab, and these performed better as predictive biomarkers of response than BEC and IgE. Cytokines and chemokines associated with airway eosinophilia, allergic inflammation, or Th2 inflammation, such as IL-13 and CXCL10, may be better predictors of clinical response to mepolizumab and omalizumab, than IL-5 or IgE, the targets of mepolizumab and omalizumab.

Pharmacoequity in Allergy-Immunology: Disparities in Access to Medications for Allergic Diseases and Proposed Solutions in the United States and Globally

Pharmacoequity is the principle that individuals should have access to high-quality medications regardless of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or availability of resources. In this review, we summarize access to therapeutics for allergic diseases in the United States and other selected countries. We focus on domains of health care access (health insurance coverage, medication availability, and specialist access) as well as system-level factors and clinician- and patient-level factors such as interpersonal racism and cultural beliefs, and how they can affect timely access to appropriate therapy for allergic diseases. Finally, we propose how pharmacoequity in allergy-immunology can be achieved by highlighting solutions to factors limiting access to medications for allergic diseases, and identify potential future research directions.

Tailored Biologics Selection in Severe Asthma

The management of severe asthma presents a significant challenge in asthma treatment. Over the past few decades, remarkable progress has been made in developing new treatments for severe asthma, primarily in the form of biological agents. These advances have been made possible through a deeper understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of asthma. Most biological agents focus on targeting specific inflammatory pathways known as type 2 inflammation. However, recent developments have introduced a new agent targeting upstream alarmin signaling pathways. This opens up new possibilities, and it is anticipated that additional therapeutic agents targeting various pathways will be developed in the future. Despite this recent progress, the mainstay of asthma treatment has long been inhalers. As a result, the guidelines for the appropriate use of biological agents are not yet firmly established. In this review, we aim to emphasize the current state of biological therapy for severe asthma and provide insights into its future prospects.

Lower myostatin and higher MUC1 levels are associated with better response to mepolizumab and omalizumab in asthma: a protein-protein interaction analyses

INTRODUCTION

Biomarkers are needed to inform the choice of biologic therapy in patients with asthma given the increasing number of biologics. We aimed to identify proteins associated with response to omalizumab and mepolizumab.

METHODS

Aptamer-based proteomic profiling (SomaScan) was used to assess 1437 proteins from 51 patients with moderate to severe asthma who received omalizumab (n = 29) or mepolizumab (n = 22). Response was defined as the change in asthma-related exacerbations in the 12 months following therapy initiation. All models were adjusted for age, sex, and pre-treatment exacerbation rate. Additionally, body mass index was included in the omalizumab model and eosinophil count in the mepolizumab model. We evaluated the association between molecular signatures and response using negative binomial regression correcting for the false discovery rate (FDR) and gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA) to identify associated pathways.

RESULTS

Over two-thirds of patients were female. The average age for omalizumab patients was 42 years and 57 years for mepolizumab. At baseline, the average exacerbation rate was 1.5/year for omalizumab and 2.4/year for mepolizumab. Lower levels of LOXL2 (unadjusted p: 1.93 × 10E-05, FDR-corrected: 0.028) and myostatin (unadjusted: 3.87 × 10E-05, FDR-corrected: 0.028) were associated with better response to mepolizumab. Higher levels of CD9 antigen (unadjusted: 5.30 × 10E-07, FDR-corrected: 0.0006) and MUC1 (unadjusted: 1.15 × 10E-06, FDR-corrected: 0.0006) were associated with better response to omalizumab, and LTB4R (unadjusted: 1.12 × 10E-06, FDR-corrected: 0.0006) with worse response. Protein-protein interaction network modeling showed an enrichment of the TNF- and NF-kB signaling pathways for patients treated with mepolizumab and multiple pathways involving MAPK, including the FcER1 pathway, for patients treated with omalizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides novel fundamental data on proteins associated with response to mepolizumab or omalizumab in severe asthma and warrants further validation as potential biomarkers for therapy selection.

Comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in asthma: A target trial emulation

BACKGROUND

Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

We emulated a hypothetical randomized trial using electronic health records from a large US-based academic health care system. Participants aged 18 years or older with baseline IgE levels between 30 and 700 IU/mL and peripheral eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/μL were eligible for study inclusion. The study period extended from March 2016 to August 2021. Outcomes included the incidence of asthma-related exacerbations and change in baseline FEV1 value over 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

In all, 68 individuals receiving dupilumab, 68 receiving omalizumab, and 65 receiving mepolizumab met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 exacerbations occurred over 68 person years (0.46 exacerbations per person year) in the dupilumab group, 63 over 68 person years (0.93 per person year) in the omalizumab group, and 86 over 65 person years (1.32 per person year) in the mepolizumab group (adjusted incidence rate ratios: dupilumab vs mepolizumab, 0.28 [95% CI = 0.09-0.84]; dupilumab vs omalizumab, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.12-1.09]; and omalizumab vs mepolizumab, 0.78 [95% CI = 0.32-1.91]). The differences in the change in FEV1 comparing patients who received the different biologics were as follows: 0.11 L (95% CI = -0.003 to 0.222 L) for dupilumab versus mepolizumab, 0.082 L (95% CI -0.040 to 0.204 L) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, and 0.026 L (95% CI -0.083 to 0.140 L) for omalizumab versus mepolizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with asthma and eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/μL and IgE levels of 30 to 700 kU/L, dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in exacerbation and FEV1 value than omalizumab and mepolizumab.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).

CONCLUSION

There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

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.

2021 year in review: Spotlight on eosinophils

This review highlights recent advances in the understanding of eosinophils and eosinophilic diseases, particularly eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases during the last year. The increasing incidence of diseases marked by eosinophilia has been documented and highlighted the need to understand eosinophil biology and eosinophilic contributions to disease. Significant insight into the nature of eosinophilic diseases has been achieved using next-generation sequencing technologies, proteomic analysis, and machine learning to analyze tissue biopsies. These technologies have elucidated mechanistic underpinnings of eosinophilic inflammation, delineated patient endotypes, and identified patient responses to therapeutic intervention. Importantly, recent clinical studies using mAbs that interfere with type 2 cytokine signaling or deplete eosinophils point to multiple and complex roles of eosinophils in tissues. Several studies identified distinct activation features of eosinophils in different tissues and disease states. The confluence of these studies supports a new paradigm of tissue-resident eosinophils that have pro- and anti-inflammatory immunomodulatory roles in allergic disease. Improved understanding of unique eosinophil activation states is now poised to identify novel therapeutic targets for eosinophilic diseases.

Lower Use of Biologics for the Treatment of Asthma in Publicly Insured Individuals

BACKGROUND

Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of poorly controlled asthma, publicly insured individuals are less likely to receive biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To assess biologic use by payer among individuals with asthma.

METHODS

We used IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative, all-payer audit of ambulatory care in the United States, to describe the patterns of use by payer.

RESULTS

Asthma treatment visits in which a biologic product was reported increased from approximately 0.1% of asthma-related visits in 2003 to 1% in 2015 and doubled to 2% by 2019. Omalizumab use initially increased from 2003 to 2006 and plateaued till 2015 when its use declined modestly, coinciding with the release of additional biologic products. In 2019, omalizumab accounted for 37% of biologic treatment visits, mepolizumab 21%, benralizumab 27%, dupilumab 15%, and reslizumab <1%. Biologic treatment visits were higher for privately insured individuals (28.3 per 1000 visits) compared with publicly insured individuals (16.3 per 1000 visits). This difference persisted after accounting for age, sex, and race using nationally representative estimates. Whites accounted for a disproportionate amount of biologic treatment visits among the publicly insured (80%) despite accounting for only 60% of publicly insured asthma treatment visits. No biologic treatment visits were observed for individuals who were uninsured. Half of dupilumab visits were for publicly insured patients, compared with 22% of mepolizumab/benralizumab and 27% of omalizumab visits.

CONCLUSION

Biologics were uncommonly used among patients with asthma, and the basis for disproportionately lower use of biologics among the publicly insured, where the burden of uncontrolled asthma is greatest, merits further investigation.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Little is known about adherence to asthma biologics.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with subsequent asthma biologic adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed individuals with asthma who started asthma biologics in the OptumLab Data Warehouse and used that data until October 2019. We calculated proportion days covered (PDC) for ICS ± long-acting β-agonists in the 6 months before and after asthma biologics were started and asthma biologic PDC for the first 6 months of use. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75, ICS PDC ≥0.75 during the 6-month period after asthma biologic were started, and achievement of a ≥50% reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use.

RESULTS

We identified 5,319 people who started asthma biologics. The mean PDC for asthma biologics was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75-0.77) in the first 6 months after starting, higher than the mean PDCs for ICS in the 6 months before (0.44 [95% CI, 0.43-0.45]) and after (0.40 [95% CI, 0.39-0.40]) starting the asthma biologic. PDC ≥0.75 for ICS 6 months before index biologic use is associated with PDC for asthma biologics ≥0.75 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) and for ICS during the first 6 months of biologic use (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 8.55-11.53). Neither ICS PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14) nor asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36) is associated with a statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use among people with any exacerbation in the 6 months before first use.

INTERPRETATION

Adherence to asthma biologic is higher than to ICS and is associated with different factors.

New Anti-Chemokine Oral Drug XC8 in the Treatment of Asthma Patients with Poor Response to Corticosteroids: Results of a Phase 2A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Introduction

A significant number of patients with moderate asthma remain symptomatic despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). These patients do not yet meet the criteria for oral corticosteroids (OCS) and monoclonal antibodies. The new anti-chemokine oral drug XC8 could represent an alternative treatment option for these patients. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of different doses of the XC8 in patients with partly controlled asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

Methods

A double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter, phase 2a trial was conducted at 12 sites in Russia. Patients with asthma were randomized into four groups (n = 30 each) to receive XC8 at 2 mg, 10 mg, 100 mg or placebo once-daily for 12 weeks in addition to low-dose ICS with or without LABA. Efficacy and safety parameters were evaluated at weeks 0, 2, 6, and 12.

Results

No statistically significant difference between the treatment arms in the number of patients with adverse events was observed. The primary endpoint, improvement of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) % predicted over 12 weeks compared to placebo, was not statistically significant. The treatment of patients with XC8 (100 mg) resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvements in FEV₁ compared to baseline (7.40% predicted, p < 0.001). Patients with elevated peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC, > 300 cells/μl) or serum interferon-γ (IFN-γ) level (> 100 pg/mL) treated with XC8 (100 mg) achieved a statistically significant improvement in FEV₁ (11.33% predicted or 8.69% predicted, respectively, p < 0.05) as compared to the baseline versus the placebo. The strongest effect was observed in patients with both high PBEC and IFN-γ level. Pharmacodynamic engagement was demonstrated through the reduction of serum levels of C–C motif ligand 2 (CCL2) and C–X–C motif chemokine 10 (CXCL10). Treatment with XC8 (100 mg) alleviated resistance to maintenance ICS therapy in patients with elevated IFN-γ level.

Conclusions

Given the high safety, oral route of administration, and efficacy, XC8 may provide a promising treatment option for patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

Trial Registration

795–30/12/2015 (Ministry of Health Russian Federation), NCT03450434 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s41030-020-00134-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacotherapeutic management of asthma in the elderly patient

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with variable phenotypes. Reversible airway obstruction and airway hyper-responsiveness often with an atopic or eosinophilic component is common in the elderly asthmatic. Asthma chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS), a combination of atopy-mediated airway hyper-responsiveness and a history of smoking or other environmental noxious exposures, can lead to some fixed airway obstruction and is also common in elderly patients. Little specific data exist for the treating the elderly asthmatic, thus requiring the clinician to extrapolate from general adult data and asthma treatment guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

A stepwise approach to pharmacotherapy of the elderly patient with asthma and ACOS is offered and the literature supporting the use of each class of drugs reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Inhaled, long-acting bronchodilators in combination with inhaled corticosteroids represent the backbone of treatment for the elderly patient with asthma or ACOS . Beyond these medications used as direct bronchodilators and topical anti-inflammatory agents, a stepwise approach to escalation of therapy includes multiple options such as oral leukotriene receptor antagonist or 5-lipoxygense inhibitor therapy, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids, oral macrolide antibiotics and if evidence of eosinophilic/atopic component disease exists then modifying monoclonal antibody therapies.