Clinical and economic consequences of switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma

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.

Advancing Care in Severe Asthma: The Art of Switching Biologics

Biologics targeting IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP are crucial in severe asthma treatment. Research, including randomized controlled trials and real-world studies, has been conducted to assess their efficacy and identify patient characteristics that may predict positive responses. The effectiveness of switching biologics, especially given overlaps in treatment eligibility, and the clinical outcomes post-cessation are critical areas of investigation. This work reviews the effects of switching between these biologics and the indicators of treatment success or failure. Insights are primarily derived from real-world experiences, focusing on patients transitioning from one monoclonal antibody to another. Moreover, this review aims to provide insights into the effectiveness, safety, and broader implications of switching biologics, enhancing understanding for clinicians to optimize severe asthma management. The article underlines the importance of a patient-centered approach, biomarker assessment, and the evolving nature of asthma treatment in making informed decisions about biologic therapy.

Long-Term Real-World Outcomes of Mepolizumab and Benralizumab Among Biologic-Naive Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Experience of 3 Years' Therapy

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapies such as mepolizumab and benralizumab offer treatment options for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although long-term real-world data on their use are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment among biologic-naive patients with SEA over 36 months and describe the incidence of super-response at 12 and 36 months, identifying potential predictive factors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of patients with SEA who were given mepolizumab or benralizumab from May 2017 to December 2019, and who completed 36 months of therapy. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and medication use were described. Data on clinical outcomes, including maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, annual exacerbation rate (AER), mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6), and eosinophil count were collected at baseline and at 12 and 36 months. Super-response was evaluated at 12 and 36 months.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were included. Maintenance OCS use significantly improved from baseline (5.3 mg/d) to 12 months (2.4 mg/d, P < .0001) and 36 months (0.6 mg/d; P < .0001). Annual exacerbation rate decreased from baseline (5.8) to 12 months (0.9; P < .0001) and 36 months (1.2; P < .0001). Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, ACQ-6, and eosinophil count significantly improved from baseline to 12 and 36 months. Twenty-nine patients demonstrated super-response at 12 months. Compared with those without a super-response, these patients had better baseline AER (4.7 vs 6.5; P = .009), mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (3.41 vs 2.54; P = .002), and ACQ-6 (3.38 vs 4.06; P = .03) scores. Most maintained a super-response up to 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are associated with significant improvements in OCS use, AER, and asthma control in real-world cohorts for up to 36 months, providing insight into long-term use for SEA.

Benralizumab in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Multicentre Real-Life Experience

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are monoclonal antibodies directed against anti-IL-5 and anti-IL5R, respectively, and their use reduces the exacerbation rate and maintains oral corticosteroid requirements in severe eosinophilic asthma. Previous studies have tested the therapeutic switch between two biologics with excellent results, further demonstrating the heterogeneity of asthmatic disease and the complexity of the therapeutic choice. It remains unclear if such patients may improve following a switch from mepolizumab to benralizumab.

AIMS

Within a multicentre real-life setting, we decided to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a therapeutic switch to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma initially treated with mepolizumab, who experienced sub-optimal responses. The secondary aim was to identify the clinical factors associated with a better response to benralizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated at six Italian specialist centres, who were switched from mepolizumab to benralizumab following a sub-optimal response, defined as a partial or total lack of clinical remission (i.e., frequent severe exacerbations and/or poorly controlled symptoms and/or higher OCS daily use in patients with a poor or moderate response in the global evaluation of treatment effectiveness scale), after at least 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included in the analysis (mean age 56.76 ± 11.97 years, 65% female). At 6 months of treatment with benralizumab, the ACT score was significantly higher than the ACT score with mepolizumab (20.24 ± 3.38 vs. 16.77 ± 3.48, p < 0.0001); the mean number of daily SABA inhalations was significantly lower after 6 months and 12 months of treatment with benralizumab than that after treatment with mepolizumab; OCS intake and the prednisone median dosage at 6 months of treatment with benralizumab were significantly lower than those with mepolizumab. Benralizumab treatment resulted in a marked improvement in asthma control, suppressed blood eosinophil levels and reduction in the number of exacerbations in the subgroup of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and nasal polyposis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma who experience a partial response to mepolizumab could benefit from switching to benralizumab, and even more those who have nasal polyposis.

Switching Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma

Currently, three classes of monoclonal antibodies targeting type 2 inflammation pathways are available in Italy for the treatment of severe asthma: anti-IgE (Omalizumab), anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα (Mepolizumab and Benralizumab), and anti-IL-4Rα (Dupilumab). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life studies have been conducted to define their efficacy and identify baseline patients' characteristics potentially predictive of favorable outcomes. Switching to another monoclonal antibody is recommended in case of a lack of benefits. The aim of this work is to review the current knowledge on the impact of switching biological therapies in severe asthma as well as on predictors of treatment response or failure. Almost all of the information about switching from a previous monoclonal antibody to another comes from a real-life setting. In the available studies, the most frequent initial biologic was Omalizumab and patients who were switched because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate despite OCS dependence. The choice of the most suitable treatment may be guided by the patient's clinical history, biomarkers of endotype (mainly blood eosinophils and FeNO), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis). Due to overlapping eligibility, larger investigations characterizing the clinical profile of patients benefiting from switching to different monoclonal antibodies are needed.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients with NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease receiving aspirin or biologicals

OBJECTIVE

NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD) is characterized by exacerbation of respiratory symptoms after NSAID intake. While research for specific treatment options continues in patients who cannot tolerate or are unresponsive to aspirin treatment after aspirin desensitization (ATAD), biologicals have emerged as a new therapeutic option in NERD patients. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life, and the sinonasal and respiratory outcomes of NERD patients treated with ATAD or biologicals.

METHODS

Patients who have been followed up at a tertiary care allergy center and who have been receiving at least one of ATAD, mepolizumab or omalizumab for at least six months were included. Evaluations were made using sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22), asthma control test (ACT), short form-36 (SF-36), blood eosinophil counts, need for recurrent functional endoscopic sinus surgeries (FESS), and asthma or rhinitis exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS).

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients comprised of 35 (59%) females and 24 (41%) males with a mean age of 46.1 (min-max, 20-70) years were included. The baseline blood eosinophil count was higher, and a significant decrease in blood eosinophil counts was observed in the mepolizumab group compared to ATAD group (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). At follow-up, the rate of recurrent FESS was lower in the group that received mepolizumab (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In NERD patients, mepolizumab significantly decreased blood eosinophil counts and recurrent FESS. There was no significant difference between the patients receiving ATAD or mepolizumab regarding other clinical parameters.

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.

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.

Switching from one biologic to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: An ANANKE study post hoc analysis

Background

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease driven by eosinophilic inflammation in the majority of cases. Despite biologic therapy patients may still be sub-optimally controlled, and the choice of the best biologic is a matter of debate. Indeed, switching between biologics is common, but no official guidelines are available and real-world data are limited.

Materials and methods

In this post hoc analysis of the Italian, multi-center, observational, retrospective study, ANANKE. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab were divided in two groups based on history of previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced [suboptimal response] vs naïve). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment. Change over time in blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use following benralizumab initiation were collected in the two groups.

Results

A total of 147 biologic-naïve and 58 biologic-experienced (34 omalizumab, 19 mepolizumab, and 5 omalizumab-mepolizumab) patients were enrolled. Biologic-experienced patients were more likely to be atopic and have a higher AER despite more frequent OCS use. Similar reductions in AER (&gt;90% in both groups), OCS use (≥49% reduction in dosage and ≥41% able to eliminate OCS), ACT improvement (≥7 points gained in 48 weeks) and lung function (≥300 mL of FEV1 improvement in 48 weeks) were observed after benralizumab introduction within the two groups. There were no registered discontinuations of benralizumab for safety reasons.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, patients who were switched to benralizumab because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to be atopic and more often treated with omalizumab. Benralizumab is effective in both naïve patients and those previously treated with a biologic.

Budget Impact Analysis of Mepolizumab for Eligible Patients in the Setting of a Severe Asthma Clinic Within Dubai Health Authority (DHA)

Purpose

To estimate 5-years budgetary impact of introducing mepolizumab to eligible patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma treated at a tertiary care hospital within Dubai Health Authority (DHA).

Patients and Methods

A budget impact analysis (BIA) model was adapted to the setting of Rashid Hospital, DHA to estimate the budgetary implications of introducing first-in-class anti-IL5 (mepolizumab) as add-on therapy for eligible patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The eligible patient population (n=60) was estimated from aggregate data provided by the clinic. Patients were eligible to treatment with mepolizumab if they had ≥2 exacerbation in the previous year and eosinophil count ≥150 cell/µL. The analysis compared the cost of treating patients in two alternative scenarios; a scenario where patients are treated with optimized usual care or with available biologic as add-on therapy, and a second scenario where mepolizumab is fully accessible to eligible patients.

Results

Administration of mepolizumab to eligible patients at Rashid Hospital is predicted to result in overall savings estimated at £270,545 over a 5-year time horizon. Exacerbation rates could not be indirectly compared for mepolizumab and omalizumab, since treatment continuation rules were defined differently. Therefore, these parameters were directly taken from the clinical trials for mepolizumab and omalizumab. The savings were estimated due to drug acquisition costs (£269,900) and estimated reduction in exacerbation (n=15). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model results was most sensitive to changing the method of calculating omalizumab dose and varying the drug acquisition cost of omalizumab by ±20%.

Conclusion

The BIA showed that full accessibility of mepolizumab to eligible severe asthma patients is predicted to be budget saving in the Dubai Health Authority. This evaluation is relevant to healthcare decision making as it demonstrates that mepolizumab is budget saving for eligible patients, while reducing burden by improving their control and symptoms.

Switch from Omalizumab to Benralizumab in Allergic Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Real-Life Experience from Southern Italy

Background. The wide availability of monoclonal antibodies for the add-on therapy of severe asthma currently allows for the personalization of biologic treatment by selecting the most appropriate drug for each patient. However, subjects with overlapping allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes can be often eligible to more than one biologic, so that the first pharmacologic choice can be quite challenging for clinicians. Within such a context, the aim of our real-life investigation was to verify whether allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by an initial biologic treatment with omalizumab, could experience better therapeutic results from a pharmacologic shift to benralizumab. Patients and methods. Twenty allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, unsuccessfully treated with omalizumab and then switched to benralizumab, were assessed for at least 1 year in order to detect eventual changes in disease exacerbations, symptom control, oral corticosteroid intake, lung function, and blood eosinophils. Results. In comparison to the previous omalizumab therapy, after 1 year of treatment with benralizumab our patients experienced significant improvements in asthma exacerbation rate (p < 0.01), rescue medication need (p < 0.001), asthma control test (ACT) score (p < 0.05), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) (p < 0.05), and blood eosinophil count (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, with respect to the end of omalizumab treatment, the score of sino-nasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22) significantly decreased after therapy with benralizumab (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The results of this real-life study suggest that the pharmacologic shift from omalizumab to benralizumab can be a valuable therapeutic approach for allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by anti-IgE treatment.