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

Anti-IL-5 Pathway Agents in Eosinophilic-Associated Disorders Across the Lifespan

Monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-5 pathways have revolutionized the treatment expectations for eosinophilic-associated conditions, particularly in patients with respiratory involvement. Mepolizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody), benralizumab (IL-5 receptor blocker monoclonal antibody), and reslizumab (IL-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody) have collectively contributed to the overall improvement of the disease burden in various conditions. Eosinophilic asthma currently boasts the most robust evidence across all age groups: all three biologics are approved for adults (aged ≥18 years); mepolizumab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also in children (aged ≥ 6 years), while bernalizumab was recently approved by the FDA for patients aged ≥6 years in the USA. In chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, subcutaneous mepolizumab is the only anti-IL-5 therapy approved so far and can be used in adult patients (aged ≥18 years). For eosinophilic esophagitis, conflicting evidence surrounds both mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab, leading to non-approval of these agents by the FDA/EMA. Recently, mepolizumab was approved for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis patients aged ≥6 years or older and for hypereosinophilic syndrome adult patients. A phase III trial proving noninferiority of benralizumab versus mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis has been recently published, while evidence on reslizumab is scant. Overall, current evidence on anti-IL-5 biologics for eosinophilic-associated disorders is mostly focused on adults, whereas data for individuals aged under 18 years and over 65 years are scarce, resulting in a lack of evidence, particularly regarding efficacy, for the use of anti-IL-5 agents in these specific patient populations. This review addresses high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials and real-world post-marketing studies regarding the use of anti-IL-5 therapies for eosinophilic-associated disorders across all age groups, spanning childhood, adulthood, and older age.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Mepolizumab, Benralizumab, and Dupilumab among Patients with Difficult-to-Control Asthma: A Multicenter Retrospective Propensity-matched Analysis

Rationale: The comparative effectiveness of biologic agents used as add-on therapy in the management of difficult-to-control asthma is unclear. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of dupilumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab among patients with difficult-to-control asthma. Methods: Retrospective multicenter cohort study of adult patients with difficult-to-control asthma starting treatment with dupilumab, mepolizumab, or benralizumab as documented in a multicenter electronic health record and claims-based database between October 19, 2018, and September 30, 2022. Propensity-score matching was used to minimize bias from nonrandomized treatment assignment; a prespecified α-level was set at 0.017 to account for three primary comparisons. The exposure of interest was the new initiation of dupilumab, benralizumab, or mepolizumab treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of asthma exacerbations in the 1 year after initiation of biologic therapy modeled using a negative binomial approach. Results: Among 893,668 patients with asthma who were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid and were ⩾12 years old (65% female; mean age, 49 yr), 3,943 started dupilumab, 1,902 started benralizumab, and 2,012 started mepolizumab, all without an alternative indication for biologic therapy. After matching, there were 1,805 patients in each group for comparisons between dupilumab and benralizumab, 1,865 for comparisons between dupilumab and mepolizumab, and 1,721 for comparisons between mepolizumab and benralizumab. For all pairwise comparisons, covariates were well balanced after matching (all standardized mean differences <0.1). Patients who initiated dupilumab had a significantly lower rate of asthma exacerbations (1.07 per year) compared with benralizumab (1.47 per year), with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.85), and also had a significantly lower rate of asthma exacerbations compared with mepolizumab (1.04 per year vs. 1.45 per year), with an RR of 0.72 (0.62-0.84). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of asthma exacerbations between mepolizumab (1.40 per year) and benralizumab (1.41 per year), with an RR of 1.00 (0.85-1.17). Conclusions: In patients with difficult-to-control asthma who had newly initiated biologic therapy, dupilumab was associated with a decreased rate of asthma exacerbations in the 1 year after initiation compared with mepolizumab or benralizumab.

Comparative Impact of Asthma Biologics: A Nationwide US Claim-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic modifiers targeting type 2 (T2) airway inflammation are effective in reducing asthma exacerbation. However, real-world and comparative effectiveness studies remain limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare the real-world impact of anti-T2 asthma biologics.

METHODS

In this retrospective, new user cohort study, we used the MarketScan, a Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, to identify adult patients with asthma who began to receive an anti-T2 biologic agent (anti-IL-5s, dupilumab, or omalizumab). We examined the influence of the biologic class on asthma exacerbation by comparing the average number of asthma exacerbation 1 year before and after biologic initiation. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to compare the effectiveness of these asthma biologics on reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations within 18 months of the initial administration of biologics while controlling for demographic variables, comorbidities, and asthma severity.

RESULTS

We identified 5,538 asthma patients who were new to taking an anti-T2 biologic [mean age [±SD], 45.6 (12.78) years; 65.8% female). Asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation by 11% to 47%, particularly among patients with two or more asthma exacerbations in the year preceding biologic initiation (31% to 65% reduction). Biologics were especially effective in reducing asthma-related hospitalizations (44.6% to 60%). After adjusting for baseline demographics, asthma medication, and comorbidities, dupilumab was associated with a lower estimated mean number of asthma exacerbation per year and lower adjusted odds ratio for developing an asthma exacerbation relative to other biologics (50% to 80% less likely).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-T2 asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation in real-word settings. Evidence supports growing literature reporting that dupilumab might have a more favorable impact on asthma exacerbation relative to other asthma biologics.

Lung function trajectories in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma on mepolizumab, omalizumab, or dupilumab

BACKGROUND

Lung function is an independent predictor of mortality. We evaluated the lung function trajectories of a cohort of patients with asthma receiving biologic therapy.

METHODS

We identified 229 monoclonal antibody-naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who initiated omalizumab, mepolizumab, or dupilumab between 2010 and 2022 in a large healthcare system in Boston, MA. Generalized additive mixed models were used to estimate the lung function trajectories during the 156 weeks following biologic initiation. Response was defined as an improvement in FEV1 or a decrease of ≤0.5% per year. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to assess time to no additional improvement in FEV1 in responders. All models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, baseline exacerbation rate, and baseline blood eosinophil count.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients initiated mepolizumab, 76 omalizumab, and 65 dupilumab. Baseline eosinophil count was highest in the mepolizumab group (405 cells/mcL) and lowest for omalizumab (250 cells/mcL). Both FEV1 and FVC improved in the mepolizumab group (FEV1 + 20 mL/year; FVC +43 mL/year). For omalizumab, there was an initial improvement in the first year followed by decline with an overall FEV1 loss of -44 mL/year and FVC -32 mL/year. For dupilumab, both FEV1 (+61 mL/year) and FVC (+74 mL/year) improved over time. Fifty percent of the mepolizumab group, 58% omalizumab, and 72% of dupilumab were responders. The median time to no additional FEV1 improvement in responders was 24 weeks for omalizumab, 48 weeks for mepolizumab, and 57 weeks for dupilumab.

CONCLUSION

In this clinical cohort, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and dupilumab had beneficial effects on FEV1 and FVC with distinct post-initiation trajectories.

Prediction of Clinical Response to Dupilumab in Patients with Severe Asthma Using Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Combined with Pulmonary Function Testing

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) combined with pulmonary function testing (PFT) for predicting the treatment outcome of patients with severe asthma receiving dupilumab.

METHODS

A total of 31 patients with severe asthma visiting our hospital from January 2022 to June 2023 were included in this study, with 28 patients completing a 16-week course of dupilumab treatment. Baseline clinical data, including demographic information, blood eosinophil counts, serum IgE levels, FeNO, asthma control test (ACT), asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and other parameters, were collected. A predictive model using a generalized linear model was established.

RESULTS

Following the 16-week course of dupilumab treatment, 22 patients showed effective response based on GETE scores, while 6 patients were nonresponders. Notably, significant improvements were observed in clinical parameters such as blood eosinophil counts, serum IgE levels, FeNO, FEV1, FEV1%, ACT, and ACQ in both response groups (p < 0.05). FeNO and pulmonary function tests demonstrated AUC values of 0.530, 0.561, and 0.765, respectively, in predicting the clinical efficacy of dupilumab, which were lower than when FeNO was combined with FEV1%. The combination of FeNO and FEV1% had a sensitivity of 1.000 and specificity of 0.591 in predicting treatment response.

CONCLUSION

The combined assessment of FeNO and FEV1% provides improved accuracy for predicting the clinical efficacy of dupilumab in managing severe asthma. However, further larger scale clinical studies with comprehensive follow-up data are needed to validate the therapeutic efficacy and applicability across diverse patient populations.

Editorial comment on "Benralizumab in children with severe eosinophilic asthma: Pharmacokinetics and long-term safety (TATE study)"

image

Suboptimal Response to Biologics in Severe Asthma-A Marker of Humoral Immunodeficiencies

BACKGROUND

Asthmatic patients with antibody deficiencies (AD) have more severe disease and higher risk of exacerbations. No data exist about the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma (SA) patients with AD.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of biologics in SA patients with and without AD.

METHODS

A case-control real-life study was conducted including 68 patients divided into 2 groups: group 1 with SA-AD and group 2 with SA.

RESULTS

Treatment with biologics for 6 months was effective for decreasing the number of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits and improving the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score; biologics also proved a systemic corticosteroid-sparing effect. Despite benefits, the number of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and ED visits, the mean ACQ score, and the cumulative dose of systemic corticosteroids remain higher in group 1 than in group 2, with lower lung function parameters. The rates of responses in group 1 were inferior to those in group 2, with a decrease by ≥50% of exacerbation rate in 76% versus 97% of patients (P = .006), no hospitalization in 44% versus 91% of patients (P < .001), no ED visit in 56% versus 82% of patients (P = .018), a significant improvement of the ACQ score by ≥0.5 in 68% versus 100% of patients (P < .001), and an increase of forced expiratory volume in the first second by >10% in 32% versus 65% of patients (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evident benefits, SA patients with AD have suboptimal responses to biologics compared with those immunocompetent. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to optimize the management of these patients in practice.

IL-5 antagonism reverses priming and activation of eosinophils in severe eosinophilic asthma

Eosinophils are key effector cells mediating airway inflammation and exacerbation in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. They are present in increased numbers and activation states in the airway mucosa and lumen. Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the key eosinophil growth factor that is thought to play a role in eosinophil priming and activation. However, the mechanism of these effects is still not fully understood. The anti-IL-5 antibody mepolizumab reduces eosinophil counts in the airway modestly but has a large beneficial effect on the frequency of exacerbations of severe eosinophilic asthma, suggesting that reduction in eosinophil priming and activation is of central mechanistic importance. In this study, we used the therapeutic effect of mepolizumab and single-cell ribonucleic acid sequencing to investigate the mechanism of eosinophil priming and activation by IL-5. We demonstrated that IL-5 is a dominant driver of eosinophil priming and plays multifaceted roles in eosinophil function. It enhances eosinophil responses to other stimulators of migration, survival, and activation by activating phosphatidylinositol-3-kinases, extracellular signal-regulated kinases, and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases signaling pathways. It also enhances the pro-fibrotic roles of eosinophils in airway remodeling via transforming growth factor-β pathway. These findings provide a mechanistic understanding of eosinophil priming in severe eosinophilic asthma and the therapeutic effect of anti-IL-5 approaches in the disease.

Is the assessment of asthma treatment efficacy sufficiently comprehensive?

The goal of asthma guideline therapy is to achieve disease control, by minimizing impairment and decreasing the risk of exacerbations and adverse effects of the disease and its treatment. The primary objective of most clinical trials of biologics for severe asthma is a reduction in exacerbation rate. Recently, studies with patients at the lower guideline steps have also selected exacerbation reduction as a primary objective. These trials in patients with milder disease frequently demonstrate statistically significantly fewer exacerbations, but their power calculations reflect larger sample size and smaller effect size. Exacerbations have a precise consensus definition, although a minimal clinically important difference has not been established. Reduction of exacerbations in severe asthma is commonly 10-fold greater than in mild disease. Further, reduction in exacerbations is not always associated with reduced impairment. If superior control is the objective, both domains should demonstrate consistent and parallel improvement. The disconnect may reflect the need for alternative tools for measurement of impairment or, possibly, different therapeutic mechanisms of action. Determining response to biologics or discussion of disease remission requires assessing symptoms that may occur daily rather than focusing on exacerbations that occur once or twice a year for patients at the highest steps of care according to the guidelines.

Post-marketing safety of anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs): an analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

BACKGROUND

Anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting IL-5 or IL-5 R α (including mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab) are widely used for inflammatory diseases such as asthma, eosinophilia, and polyangiitis. However, real-world data regarding its safety in a large sample population are incomplete. So, we evaluated the safety of anti-IL-5 mAbs by pharmacovigilance analyzes based on related adverse events (AEs) from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

METHODS

In disproportionality analysis, four algorithms were employed to detect the signals of anti-IL-5 mAbs from the FAERS between 2016 and 2022. In addition, we also used MYSQL 8.0, Navicat Premium 15, and Microsoft EXCEL 2019 to analyze the signals of anti-IL-5 mAbs systematically.

RESULTS

There are 9,476,351 reports collected from the FAERS database, of which 22,174 reports listed anti-IL-5 mAbs as the 'primary suspected (PS)' drug. A total of 59 (20 new signals, mepolizumab) and 62 (19 new signals, benralizumab) significant disproportionality preferred terms (PTs) conforming to the four algorithms were retained synchronously. Finally, we detected that the anti-IL-5 mAbs-induced AEs occurred in 31 organ systems (mepolizumab) and 30 organ systems (benralizumab). For mepolizumab and reslizumab, unexpected and new significant PTs of AEs were found, such as asthmatic crisis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, COVID-19, pneumothorax, adrenal insufficiency and so on. Notably, the risk signal of asthmatic crisis for mepolizumab was stronger than benralizumab (ROR 108.04 [95%CI, 96.09-121.47] vs 26.83 [95%CI, 18.91-38.06]). Comparing with mepolizumab and benralizumab, we found the proportion of serious adverse events in mepolizumab was both greater than benralizumab in each age group (≤20, 20-65, and ≥ 65). The median onset time of mepolizumab was 280 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1-367 days).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of FAERS data identified anti-IL-5 mAbs-associated AEs, and our findings supported continuous clinical monitoring, pharmacovigilance, and further studies of anti-IL-5 mAbs. In addition, clinicians may be more aware of the limitations of use in package inserts of anti-IL-5 mAbs: Not for relief of acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus. Because of some limitations in the FAERS such as self-reports from patients and other confounding factors, the safety of anti-IL-5 mAbs needed more studies in different dimensions, especially the risk of cancer.

Adverse events of anti-IL-5 drugs in patients with eosinophilic asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence-based assessments

BACKGROUND

We aimed to clarify comprehensively the safety profiles of anti-IL-5 drugs and pinpoint potential safety concerns that may arise in their post-marketing phase.

METHODS

Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022. Additionally, we investigated the FDA AE Reporting System for post-marketing adverse event (AE) reports related to anti-IL-5 drugs. The outcomes fulfilled the proportional reporting rate criteria and the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network.

RESULTS

We included 24 published studies in our analysis. The anti-IL-5 treatment group showed an incidence of AEs comparable to the placebo group, and it exhibited a significantly lower frequency of serious AEs. Common AEs were asthma, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and bronchitis. The post-marketing data included 28,478 case reports associated with the suspect drugs and 75 suspect safety observations affecting 16 system organ classes. New suspect observations included incomplete therapeutic product effect, URTIs, and pulmonary mass in reports related to mepolizumab. Reports associated with mepolizumab and benralizumab also indicated issues with incorrect technique in device usage and product issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual anti-IL-5 drugs' safety profiles largely matched their product inserts. We identified issues like improper device usage, product issue, and URTIs as potential concerns for mepolizumab and benralizumab. Additionally, all anti-IL-5 drugs showed signs of incomplete therapeutic effects.

Anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5R biologics for severe asthma. Are there any differences in their effects?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective multicentre study is to describe the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα therapies and to compare their effectiveness.

METHODS

We collected and analysed results separately for anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα therapies from January 2016 until December 2021 in multidisciplinary severe asthma units. We collected demographic and clinical data, treatment with previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents, and comorbidities. We compared the number of exacerbations and admissions to the hospital, daily oral corticosteroid intake, pulmonary function tests, and Asthma Control Test scores before and after 12 months of therapy. 261 patients were included: 176 patients in the anti-IL-5 group and 85 in the anti-IL-5Rα group.

RESULTS

Both groups led to statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbations, hospital admissions, and visits to the Emergency Room. Although both groups showed a significant reduction in blood eosinophiliccount, we found a difference, although not significant, in the magnitude of reduction as benralizumab was able to decrease eosinophil counts to zero. Patients in the anti-IL-5 group achieved higher ACT scores after treatment, although this improvement was seen in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα biologics have shown similar effectiveness despite having different mechanisms of action. The anti-IL-5 group appeared to be better than benralizumab at improving ACT scores and FEV1/FVC and at reducing the number of inhalers. Although these differences were not statistically significant, it is not clear whether they may have clinical relevance and they might highlight the need for further head-to-head studies comparing these treatments.

Effects of biological therapies on patients with Type-2 high asthma and comorbid obesity

Over 20 million adults and 6 million children in the United States (US) have asthma, a chronic respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchoconstriction, and mucus hypersecretion. Obesity, another highly prevalent disease in the US, is a major risk factor for asthma and a significant cause of diminished asthma control, increased submucosal eosinophilia, and reduced quality of life. A large subgroup of these patients experiences severe symptoms and recurrent exacerbations despite maximal dosage of standard asthma therapies. In the past two decades, the development of biological therapies has revolutionized the field and advanced our understanding of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers. However, patients with obesity and comorbid asthma are not principally considered in clinical trials of biologics. Large landmark cluster analyses of patients with asthma have consistently identified specific asthma phenotypes that associate with obesity but may be differentiated by age of asthma onset and inflammatory cell profiles in sputum. These patterns suggest that biologic processes driving asthma pathology are heterogenous among patients with obesity. The biological mechanisms driving pathology in patients with asthma and comorbid obesity are not well understood and likely multifactorial. Future research needs to be done to elicit the cellular and metabolic functions in the relationship of obesity and asthma to yield the best treatment options for this multiplex condition. In this review, we explore the key features of type 2 inflammation in asthma and discuss the effectiveness, safety profile, and research gaps regarding the currently approved biological therapies in asthma patients with obesity.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Mepolizumab in the Management of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Systematic Review

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) is characterized by persistent airway inflammation and frequent exacerbations despite standard treatments. Mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody that reduces eosinophil levels by targeting interleukin-5, has emerged as an add-on therapy for patients with SEA. This systematic review evaluated mepolizumab's efficacy and safety for treating SEA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major databases. Thirty-two studies with over 6,000 patients were included, comprising randomized controlled trials, open-label extensions, and real-world observational analyses. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using standard tools. Meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to heterogeneity. Instead, a narrative synthesis was performed. Mepolizumab significantly reduced exacerbation rates by around 50% and improved symptoms and lung function compared to placebo in pivotal trials. Long-term open-label studies showed sustained reductions in exacerbations and stable lung function for up to 4.5 years. Real-world data demonstrated consistent 50%-90% exacerbation decreases across diverse patient populations over 6-24 months. Mepolizumab exhibited an acceptable safety profile, with mild injection site reactions and headaches as most common adverse events. While specific subgroups may show enhanced responses, mepolizumab displayed broad efficacy regardless of patient demographics or phenotypes. The extensive evidence provides robust support for mepolizumab as an efficacious and safe add-on treatment option for patients with severe, refractory eosinophilic asthma. Further high-quality comparative effectiveness research is warranted to optimize patient selection and positioning among emerging biologics.

Which biologic? New findings from a real-world study

See related article

Developments in the Management of Severe Asthma in Children and Adolescents: Focus on Dupilumab and Tezepelumab

Severe asthma in children and adolescents exerts a substantial health, financial, and societal burden. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition with multiple clinical phenotypes and underlying inflammatory patterns that might be different in individual patients. Various add-on treatments have been developed to treat severe asthma, including monoclonal antibodies (biologics) targeting inflammatory mediators. Biologics that are currently approved to treat children (≥ 6 years of age) or adolescents (≥ 12 years of age) with severe asthma include: anti-immunoglobulin E (omalizumab), anti-interleukin (IL)-5 (mepolizumab), anti-IL5 receptor (benralizumab), anti-IL4/IL13 receptor (dupilumab), and antithymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) (tezepelumab). However, access to these targeted treatments varies across countries and relies on few and crude indicators. There is a need for better treatment stratification to guide which children might benefit from these treatments. In this narrative review we will assess the most recent developments in the treatment of severe pediatric asthma, as well as potential biomarkers to assess treatment efficacy for this patient population.

A cost comparison of benralizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in patients with severe asthma: A US third-party payer perspective

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of biologics have demonstrated reduced exacerbations, decreased use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and improvements in daily symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). OBJECTIVE: To compare direct health care costs associated with biologic use for the treatment of SEA from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: We developed a cost-minimization model to compare costs and cost offsets associated with 3 biologics-benralizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-for 2- and 4-year periods. The model relied on longitudinal data from clinical trials to inform the primary (base case) analysis cost comparison and RWE study data, in a separate scenario, to compare costs in nonclinical trial settings. Primary model outcomes included exacerbations (including hospitalizations), OCS-dependent years (including associated complications), and total direct health care biologic costs. Results were calculated at the per patient and population level (per 1,000 patients). Sensitivity analyses with key model parameters were performed. RESULTS: Benralizumab had the lowest total biologic costs per patient for both the 2- and 4-year periods. Over 4 years, the marginal cost difference in total biologic costs per patient was $23,061 lower for benralizumab vs mepolizumab and $17,242 lower for benralizumab vs dupilumab. The 4-year population level analysis of benralizumab vs mepolizumab revealed $4.8 million in marginal cost offsets due to 582 fewer exacerbations and 153 fewer OCS-dependent years and a marginal total cost savings of $27.9 million per 1,000 patients for benralizumab. The 4-year population level analysis of benralizumab vs dupilumab revealed $2.3 million in marginal cost offsets due to 291 fewer exacerbations and 64 fewer OCS-dependent years and marginal total cost savings of $19.5 million per 1,000 patients for benralizumab. RWE data were available for a 2-year cost comparison scenario of benralizumab vs mepolizumab, which showed similar results to the base case analysis. Sensitivity analyses varying assumptions on key model parameter estimates confirmed results, with benralizumab having lower total direct health care costs in all scenarios tested, and showed that model results were most sensitive to changes in biologic costs and exacerbation reduction rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving benralizumab had higher nonbiologic cost offsets because of reductions in exacerbations and OCS-dependent years, leading to greater cost savings for third-party payers compared with patients receiving mepolizumab or dupilumab. Taken together with biologic costs, benralizumab presents greater savings in health care costs for payers than patients with SEA who use mepolizumab or dupilumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK). Drs Xu, Chung, Genofre, and Katial are or were AstraZeneca employees at the time this research was conducted and may be shareholders of AstraZeneca. Ms Schaefer and Dr Szende are employees of Labcorp Drug Development, which received funding from AstraZeneca to perform this research.

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

The development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting specific components of the pathways relevant to asthma pathophysiology has revolutionized treatment of severe asthma both in adults and children and helped to further unravel the heterogeneity of this disease. However, the availability of multiple agents, often with overlapping eligibility criteria, creates a need for pragmatic guidance for specialists undertaking care of patients with severe asthma. In this review, we provide an overview of the data supporting the clinical efficacy of biologics in distinct asthma phenotypes/endotypes. We also focus on the role of biomarkers and treatable traits, including comorbidities, in the choice of asthma biologics, highlight which treatments have been demonstrated to be steroid sparing in corticosteroid dependent asthma, and provide practical guidance that can drive shared decision making on treatment choice with patients. In addition, we summarize what is known to date regarding long-term safety of these drugs, and lastly, discuss future directions in biologics research.

Evaluation of switching or simultaneous use of biologic treatment in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and severe asthma. Considerations in clinical decision making

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 targeting biologics have reached the market first for asthma and since 2019 also for CRSwNP. As clear guidelines and predictors for optimal biological choice are missing, patients are sometimes required to switch biologic therapy in order to find the optimal treatment result. In this paper, we evaluate reasons for switching biologics and the treatment effects after each sequential switch.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-four patients who switched from one biologic to another for their treatment of CRSwNP and asthma were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty patients experienced satisfactory control of CRSwNP, but insufficient control of severe asthma. Fifty-one patients experienced satisfactory control of severe asthma, but insufficient control of CRSwNP/EOM. Twenty-eight patients experienced insufficient control of both upper and lower airways. Thirteen patients had to switch because of side effects. Furthermore, two cases are described to clarify clinical decision-making.

DISCUSSION

For abovementioned patients, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to find the best suitable biologic. It seems ineffective to switch to a second anti-IL5 treatment if the first one is not successful. Most patients that failed omalizumab and/or an anti-IL-5 treatment are well controlled on dupilumab. Therefore, we suggest to use dupilumab as first choice when switching biologic agents.

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.

Incidence of Anti-Drug Antibodies to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved for the treatment of asthma in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the incidence of ADAs and their impact on reported clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, open-label extension studies, and nonrandomized studies of biologics in patients with asthma indexed in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL between January 1, 2000, and July 9, 2022, were carried out. The primary outcomes were treatment-emergent ADAs (incidence) and ADA prevalence.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies met the eligibility criteria. ADA incidence over follow-up was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.60-4.55) and was highest in the benralizumab studies (8.35%), with a risk ratio of 4.9 (2.69-8.92) when compared with placebo, and lowest in the omalizumab studies (0.00%). Incidence was 7.61% in the dupilumab studies, 4.39% in reslizumab, 3.63% in mepolizumab, and 1.12% in the tezepelumab studies. Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was 0.00% to 10.74% and was highest for benralizumab (7.12%). Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was higher in the benralizumab every 8 weeks (8.17%) versus every 4 weeks arms (5.81%). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses by study type and length of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 2.9% of individuals in the included studies developed ADAs over study follow-up period. The incidence was highest in the benralizumab group and lowest in the omalizumab group. The subcutaneous route and longer dosing intervals were associated with higher ADA development.

The Role of Benralizumab in Eosinophilic Immune Dysfunctions: A Case Report-Based Literature Review

In the past years, the knowledge of eosinophils playing a primary pathophysiologic role in several associated conditions has led to the development of biologics targeting therapies aiming at normalizing the immune response, reducing chronic inflammation, and preventing tissue damage. To better illustrate the potential relationship between different eosinophilic immune dysfunctions and the effects of biological therapies in this scenario, here, we present a case of a 63-year-old male first referred to our department in 2018 with a diagnosis of asthma, polyposis, and rhinosinusitis and presenting a suspicion of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs' allergy. He also had a past medical history of eosinophilic gastroenteritis/duodenitis (eosinophilia counts >50 cells/high-power field HPF). The use of multiple courses of corticosteroid therapy failed to completely control these conditions. In October 2019, after starting benralizumab (an antibody directed against the alpha chain of the IL-5 cytokine receptor) as add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma, important clinical improvements were reported both on the respiratory (no asthma exacerbations) and gastrointestinal systems (eosinophilia count 0 cells/HPF). Patients' quality of life also increased. Since June 2020, systemic corticosteroid therapy was reduced without worsening of gastrointestinal symptoms or eosinophilic inflammation. This case warns of the importance of early recognition and appropriate individualized treatment of eosinophilic immune dysfunctions and suggests the conduction of further larger studies on the use of benralizumab in gastrointestinal syndromes aiming at better understanding its relying mechanisms of action in the intestinal mucosa.

Current research into A20 mediation of allergic respiratory diseases and its potential usefulness as a therapeutic target

Allergic airway diseases are characterized by excessive and prolonged type 2 immune responses to inhaled allergens. Nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) is a master regulator of the immune and inflammatory response, which has been implicated to play a prominent role in the pathogenesis of allergic airway diseases. The potent anti-inflammatory protein A20, termed tumor necrosis factor-α-inducible protein 3 (TNFAIP3), exerts its effects by inhibiting NF-κB signaling. The ubiquitin editing abilities of A20 have attracted much attention, resulting in its identification as a susceptibility gene in various autoimmune and inflammatory disorders. According to the results of genome-wide association studies, several TNFAIP3 gene locus nucleotide polymorphisms have been correlated to allergic airway diseases. In addition, A20 has been found to play a pivotal role in immune regulation in childhood asthma, particularly in the protection against environmentally mediated allergic diseases. The protective effects of A20 against allergy were observed in conditional A20-knockout mice in which A20 was depleted in the lung epithelial cells, dendritic cells, or mast cells. Furthermore, A20 administration significantly decreased inflammatory responses in mouse models of allergic airway diseases. Here, we review emerging findings elucidating the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which A20 regulates inflammatory signaling in allergic airway diseases, as well as discuss its potential as a therapeutic target.

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

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV1 compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV1 by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV1 by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.

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).