IgE, blood eosinophils and FeNO are not enough for choosing a monoclonal therapy among the approved options in patients with type 2 severe asthma

Head-to-Head Effectiveness Comparison of Biological Therapies in Patients With Mixed Eosinophilic and Allergic Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing biologic therapies for severe asthma usually have a selection bias considering that some of these therapies are indicated for allergic asthma and others for eosinophilic asthma. Severe mixed asthma (SMA) was considered in patients with both allergic and eosinophilic (mixed) severe asthma. In SMA, dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab can be used. Currently there are no head-to-head studies comparing the clinical response of biologic therapies in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of four biologic therapies in SMA.

METHODS

This was a prospective study with 1 year of follow-up. Patients with severe asthma with markers for allergic asthma (total IgE greater than 100 IU/L and specific IgE to aeroallergens) and eosinophilic asthma (eosinophils greater than 150 cells/mL) were recruited. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated at baseline to assess significant differences between groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving greater than 20 points on the Asthma Control Test (ACT). As a secondary outcomes, we evaluated the number of severe exacerbations of asthma per year and changes in FEV1.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients participated in the study (dupilumab, n = 43; omalizumab, n = 32; mepolizumab, n = 32; and benralizumab, n = 26). At baseline, the groups did not have significant differences in sociodemographic or clinical characteristics. After 1 year with biologic therapies, the four groups had significant improvement in clinical outcomes with few between-group differences. There was no difference for the main outcome (ACT) in the four groups. Dupilumab and mepolizumab demonstrated a higher interval improvement in FEV1 compared with omalizumab. Dupilumab users had the highest proportion of patients who achieved a 200-mL improvement in FEV1 over omalizumab and benralizumab. The greatest adherence was observed among benralizumab users.

CONCLUSIONS

In SMA the four biologic therapies offer similar symptom control according to the ACT, but there are some differences according to FEV1 and adherence. Therefore, the selection of these therapies in SMA must be based on the particular aspects of each patient.

Role of specific immunoglobulin-E in chronic rhinosinusitis: Its clinical relevance according to nasal challenge test

Background

Guidelines for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) propose total IgE and eosinophils as important biomarkers to identify type-2 inflammation. Despite the fact that specific IgE (sIgE) have been identified as a clinical predictor in some type-2 diseases for different clinical outcomes, its role in CRS has yet to be explored in detail.

Objetive

To describe systemic and local sIgE in CRS and explore its possible association with clinical outcomes using nasal challenge tests (NCT).

Methods

In CRS patients, we measure total IgE, serum sIgE (SsIgE) and nasosinusal sIgE (NsIgE) against 9 allergenic sources; Der p, Der f, Blo t, Can f, Fel d, Per a, grasses, Staphylococcus enterotoxin A, and B. NCT was done using the allergen with the higher sIgE prevalence (Der p).

Results

A total of 174 patients were included. Prevalence of SsIgE was 52.8% and NsIgE 46.5%; Der p was the principal allergen for SsIgE and NsIgE. The presence of nasal polyps, asthma comorbidity, NSAID hypersensitivity, and hyposmia, were significantly associated with the presence of SsIgE and NsIgE but not with total IgE. NCT-Der p was performed in 73 CRS patients, being positive in 33 (45.2%). SsIgE have the best diagnostic accuracy (79.4%) to predict NCT results (NsIgE 67.5% total IgE 52%).

Conclusion

Specific IgE is a better biomarker in CRS than total IgE. Patients with clinically relevant SsIgE have a pheno-endotype associated with different clinical outcomes. Considering the clinical relevance of SsIgE demonstrated by NCT, interventions like allergen immunotherapy in CRS must be study.

Update on Inflammatory Biomarkers for Defining Asthma Phenotype

Asthma is a chronic heterogeneous disease characterized by various symptoms and persistent airway inflammation, resulting in progressive lung function decline. Classifying asthma phenotypes/endotypes is crucial because the underlying mechanisms and long-term outcomes vary from patient to patient. Recent trials have identified several biomarkers for classifying asthma phenotypes/endotypes, and current treatments have been developed on the basis of these biomarkers. Conventional biomarkers, including immunoglobulin E, blood/sputum eosinophil counts, airway obstruction or reversibility, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide, are widely used to diagnose asthma. However, these markers have some limitations, necessitating the discovery of additional biomarkers. Therefore, this review summarizes recently suggested biomarkers for representing type 2-high (eosinophilic) vs. type 2-low (neutrophilic) asthma, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease, and severe asthma. Additionally, we discuss the potential benefits of these biomarkers in classifying specific phenotypes/endotypes and managing asthmatic patients.

Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma

Background

To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.

Aim

To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.

Methods

This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.

Results

Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE.

Conclusions

The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Cost effectiveness of omalizumab for severe asthma in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to free human immunoglobulin E. The introduction of this drug raises concerns about economic impact in scenarios with constrained. This study aimed to estimate the cost utility of omalizumab in adults with severe asthma uncontrolled in Colombia.

METHODS

We used a Markov state-transition model to estimate the cost and QALYs associated with omalizumab compared to standard of care; from a third payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. This model used local costs while utilities were derived from international literature. Cost and transition probabilities were obtained from a mixture of Colombian-specific and internationally published data.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of omalizumab versus standard of care is US$3 481. The mean incremental benefit of omalizumab versus standard of care 0.094 QALY. The incremental expected cost per unit of benefit is estimated at US$36846 per QALY. There is only a probability of 0.032 that Omalizumab is more cost-effective than standard of care at a threshold of US$5180 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab is not cost-effective in adults with severe asthma uncontrolled in Colombia. If the cost of Omalizumab is reduced by 83%, this treatment would be cost-effective in our country. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) has emerged as an alternative therapy, since it is administered every 24 h, in contrast to other ICS/LABAs such as fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/Salm), which requires administration every 12 h. Concerns have arisen over whether the benefit generated by FF/VI justifies the additional costs it involves over FP/Salm. This study aimed at assessing the health and economic consequences of FF/VI in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs for FF/VI and FP/Salm were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

We estimated a gain of 16.8 and 10.7 QALYs per patient per year on FF/VI and FP/Salm, respectively. At the same time, we observed a difference of US$216 in total discounted cost per person-year on FF/VI with respect to FP/Salm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FF/VI was USD $70 per QALY with respect to FP/Salm. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

FF/VI is more cost-effective than FP/Salm. The evidence supports using FF/VI therapy in Colombia, and the study should be replicated in other middle-income countries.

Asthma and Allergy: Unravelling a Tangled Relationship with a Focus on New Biomarkers and Treatment

Asthma is a major driver of health care costs across ages. Despite widely disseminated asthma-treatment guidelines and a growing variety of effective therapeutic options, most patients still experience symptoms and/or refractoriness to standard of care treatments. As a result, most patients undergo a further intensification of therapy to optimize symptom control with a subsequent increased risk of side effects. Raising awareness about the relevance of evaluating aeroallergen sensitizations in asthmatic patients is a key step in better informing clinical practice while new molecular tools, such as the component resolved diagnosis, may be of help in refining the relationship between sensitization and therapeutic recommendations. In addition, patient care should benefit from reliable, easy-to-measure and clinically accessible biomarkers that are able to predict outcome and disease monitoring. To attain a personalized asthma management and to guide adequate treatment decisions, it is of paramount importance to expand clinicians' knowledge about the tangled relationship between asthma and allergy from a molecular perspective. Our review explores the relevance of allergen testing along the asthma patient's journey, with a special focus on recurrent wheezing children. Here, we also discuss the unresolved issues regarding currently available biomarkers and summarize the evidence supporting the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin as promising biomarker.

Difficult-to-Control Asthma Management in Adults

The management of difficult-to-control asthma remains a significant challenge, which frequently requires the input of the wider multidisciplinary team. This review covers the importance of systematic assessment, phenotyping, treatment options at step 4, an overview of biologics and novel therapies for type 2 (T2) inflammation, and nonpharmacological interventions. Once people have been identified as suffering from difficult-to-control asthma, it is important to use the systematic assessment process to allow accurate diagnosis and optimization of adherence as well as identification and treatment of any relevant comorbidities. Before initiating a biologic, it is important to optimize inhaled therapies and sufficiently phenotype individual patients to allow for the logical use of biologic agents targeting T2 inflammation. For patients who either do not have evidence of T2 inflammation or remain symptomatic despite biologics, attention should be paid to the available nonpharmacological interventions. Difficult-to-treat asthma remains an area of significant unmet need, but improvements in models of service delivery and the ongoing pharmacological pipeline are causes for significant optimism that sooner rather than later there will no longer be asthmatic patients who are difficult to treat.

Cost-utility analysis of dupilumab add on therapy versus standard therapy in adolescents and adults for severe asthma in Colombia

INTRODUCTION

Dupilumab is a recombinant human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. This drug raises concerns about the economic impact in scenarios with constrained resources. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of dupilumab plus standard care (SoC) vs SoC alone in adolescents and adults with severe asthma and eosinophilic phenotype.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with dupilumab, were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed dupilumab was associated with higher annual annual per-patient costs (US$5,719 for dupilumab and US$1,214 for standard therapy) and higher QALYs than standard therapy (fe  4.06 QALYs vs 3.97 QALYs, respectively). . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimated was US$50,160 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Dupilumab is not cost-effective using a WTP of US$19000 per QALY threshold in Colombia. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Cost‑effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE

In patients with uncontrolled asthma, despite management with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the additional use of omalizumab and tiotropium is recommended. Omalizumab is an expensive medication and doubts arise as to whether the benefit of this drug outweighs the additional expense of the drug. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of three interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, and add-on therapy with omalizumab, were calculated over a 10-year time horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model showed that tiotropium was associated with lower cost than standard therapy and omalizumab (US$5590 vs. US$5693 vs. U$18,154 average annual cost per patient), and higher QALYs (11.8 vs. 11.3 vs. 11.9) average per patient), showing dominance respect to standard therapy. The probability that tiotropium provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Cost-utility analysis and budget impact of benralizumab as add-on therapy to standard care for severe eosinophilic asthma in Colombia

Introduction:Benralizumab, amonoclonal antibody for human interleukin-5, has been associated with adecrease in asthma exacerbations. The introduction of this drug raises concerns about the economic impact in scenarios with constraints. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of benralizumab plus standard care (SoC) vs. SoC alone in adults with severe uncontrolled asthma with evidence of eosinophilic phenotype.Methods:We constructed aMarkov model with three health states (asthma on benralizumab and SOC, asthma on SOC alone, and death) from ahealthcare system perspective over alifetime horizon. The model was populated using local costs while utilities were derived from international literature. Cost and transition probabilities were obtained from amixture of Colombian-specific and internationally published data.Results:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient peryear was $US 42,746per QALY gained. Benralizumab treatment would be cost-effective at the recommended societal US 18,000 WTP threshold if the cost of benralizumab is reduced by 41% more than the base case value.Conclusion:Benralizumab is not cost-effective using WTP of US$18,000per QALY threshold in Colombia. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines.