Real-life effectiveness of mepolizumab in severe asthma: a systematic literature review

The clinical effectiveness of mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma; outcomes from four years cohort evaluation

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials and real world studies demonstrated benefit of mepolizumab treatment in severe asthma but data on its effectiveness beyond 2 years remain limited. Herein, we provide mepolizumab treatment evaluation up to 4 years.

METHODS

we studied all patients initiated on mepolizumab in our center from June 2017 to August 2018. Clinical outcomes data were retrieved from the local dendrite systems registry. Comparison analyses and logistic regression were conducted to explore longevity and predictors of response to mepolizumab treatment.

RESULTS

a total of 66 patients initiated on mepolizumab with a median follow-up of 45.8 (42.4,48.1) months were included in the study [mean age 50.3 years (range 18-79), females 50 (73%) ]. At 20.7 months of treatment, 42 patients (63.6%) had positive response, 13 (19.7%) negative response, and 11 (16.7%) discontinued due to other factors. At 45.8 months, 35 (53%) patients were still on mepolizumab, 21 (31.8%) switched to a different biologic, and 10 (15.2%) discontinued biologics. Two deaths were recorded during the study period.The median blood eosinophil was reduced from 0.43x109/L (0.27, 0.75) to 0.04 (0.0, 0.1) (p < 0.00001)]. The median annual exacerbations were reduced from 6.0 (4,8) to 1.0 (0.0,3.0) (p < 0.00001), and mOCS use was reduced from59% to 29%, p = 0.001. The mean asthma control questionnaire-6 (ACQ6) improved from 3.1 ± 1.7 to 2.1 ± 1.3 (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

mepolizumab clinical benefit was sustained over 4 years. However, approximately half of the cohort discontinued the treatment prompting the need for further research into the treatment response longevity.

Quality of Life Improvements with Biologic Initiation Among Subspecialist-Treated US Patients with Severe Asthma

Purpose

Patients living with severe asthma (SA) experience multiple health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairments. This study examined HRQoL changes after biologic treatment initiation among a large, real-world cohort of patients with SA.

Patients and methods

CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of subspecialist-treated adults with SA who receive biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Patients enrolled February 2018-February 2023 were asked to complete the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) every 6 months (total score range of 0-100 [0=best possible health], meaningful change threshold is a 4-unit reduction in the total score). Changes in SGRQ responses from 6 months before initiation to 12 to 18 months after initiation were summarized.

Results

A total of 76 patients completed the SGRQ 0 to 6 months before and 12 to 18 months after biologic initiation. The mean (SD) SGRQ total score decreased from 52.2 (20.6) to 41.9 (23.8), with improvement across the symptoms (-14.5), activity (-11.0), and impacts (-8.3) components. For specific impairments reported by ≥50% of patients before biologic initiation, fewer reported each impairment after biologic initiation; the largest reductions were for "Questions about what activities usually make you feel short of breath these days [Walking outside on level ground]" (67% to 43%), "Questions about other effects that your respiratory problems may have on you these days [I feel that I am not in control of my respiratory problems]" (55% to 34%), and "Questions about your cough and shortness of breath these days [My coughing or breathing disturbs my sleep]" (63% to 45%).

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of adults with SA, biologic initiation was associated with meaningful improvements in asthma-related HRQoL. These data provide further insight into the burden SA places on patients and the benefits of biologic treatment.

[Adverse events in biologics for severe asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a pathology that remains severe and is inadequately controlled in 4% of patients. Identification of multiple pathophysiological mechanisms has led to the development of biomedicines, of which there are currently five available in France, with a safety profile that appears favorable but remains uncertain due to a lack of real-life experience with these new molecules.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

Although relatively benign, the adverse effects of biologics are diverse. Headache, joint pain, skin reactions at the injection site, fever and asthenia are commonly observed during the different treatments. Ophthalmological complications seem restricted to dupilumab, with numerous cases of keratitis and conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Several respiratory complications have also been observed, essentially consisting in pharyngitis and other upper respiratory infections. Hypereosinophilia may occur, mainly with dupilumab, requiring investigation of systemic repercussions or vasculitis. Allergic reactions are uncommon but require careful monitoring during initial injections.

CONCLUSION

Biologics for severe asthma are recent drugs with a favorable safety profile, but with little real-life experience, justifying increased vigilance by prescribing physicians.

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.

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

Articular manifestations related to anti-interleukin-5 therapies in severe asthma: a case series

Articular manifestations should be screened before and during anti-IL-5/5R biologic treatment in severe asthma. Rigorous multidisciplinary team discussion should be carried out to assess the risk-benefit balance of withholding effective treatment. https://bit.ly/3vfPn4k.

Cost-effectiveness and resource use analysis of patients with asthma before and after treatment with mepolizumab in a real-life setting

OBJECTIVE

To define the cost-effectiveness and health resource use of mepolizumab in a cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in real-life conditions in Spain.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study. Patients included were diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma and treated with mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) 4-weekly for 12 months. Outcomes evaluated: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), number of exacerbations, disease control with the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), and direct and indirect cost per patient.

RESULTS

12 months after mepolizumab initiation, a significant decrease in exacerbations was shown, from a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 3.1 (2.6) to 0.7 (1.5), an increase from 4.9 (0.4) to 6.1 (0.5) in AQLQ, and from 14.9 (5.7) to 21.5 (3.9) in ACT scores. The number of cortico-dependent patients significantly decreased from 53.3% to 13.3% during this period. There was a significant decrease of 94% in the cost of hospitalization, from a mean (SD) of €4063.9 (5423.9) pretreatment to €238.6 (1306.9) post-treatment (p = 0.0003). Total costs decreased significantly from a median of €2,423.1 (1,512.8; 9,320.9) pretreatment to €1,177.5 (965.0; 1,737.8) post-treatment if mepolizumab was excluded. ICER per exacerbation avoided was €3606.9, per 3-point ACT score increase €3934.8, and per 0.5-point AQLQ score increase €3606.9.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab improves control of asthma and quality of life in patients with severe diseases in a cost-effectiveness range. The number of exacerbations decreased, and there was a clear reduction in primary care visits and hospitalizations. Further economic analyses of biological therapies for asthma are required.

The association of varying treatment thresholds of mepolizumab on asthma exacerbations in adults

Background: Asthma has a high healthcare burden globally, with up to 10% of the asthma population suffering from severe disease. Biologic agents are a newer class of asthma treatments for severe asthma, with good evidence for efficacy in clinical trials. Nevertheless, real-world studies of its impact on clinical outcomes are limited.Methods: This is an observational cohort study using administrative claims data. The study population consisted of patients aged ≥18 years who had a diagnosis of asthma and initiated mepolizumab after November 4, 2015 and had continuous medical and drug coverage in both the 365 days prior to and following mepolizumab initiation. In patients treated with mepolizumab, we described clinically significant asthma exacerbations by minimum continuous treatment thresholds following initiation of mepolizumab, medication switching patterns and chronic oral corticosteroid (≥28 days) use.Results: We identified 2,536 adults with asthma who initiated mepolizumab. There was an association toward reduction in severe asthma-related events over the first one year of exposure. We observed associations with reduced dispensings of oral corticosteroids over the first year after mepolizumab initiation. Very few patients switched to other biologics during the study period.Conclusions: Treatment with mepolizumab may be associated with fewer asthma-related events in the first year. Over the first one year after initiating mepolizumab, we found associations with decreased concomitant dispensings of oral corticosteroids and medium to high dose ICS/LABA. Additionally, most patients who initiated mepolizumab did not switch to other biologics.

Significance of Self-Injectable Biologics in Japanese Patients with Severe Allergic Diseases: Focusing on Pen-Type Devices and Copayment

Patients and Methods

A questionnaire survey was administered to 18, 14, and 3 patients introduced to home self-injection of dupilumab or mepolizumab using a pen-type device for atopic dermatitis, asthma alone, and asthma plus chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, respectively.

Results

All but one participant wished to continue self-injection. Most participants affirmed the reduction in copayment (88.6%) and saving time and labor for hospital visits (88.6%). Six patients who received dupilumab complained of side effects, but all, except for one, continued the treatment. Of the 13 patients who had previously used a syringe-type device, 10 preferred the pen type because of its ease of use, while 3 (23%) preferred the syringe type because of the self-adjustable injection speed for pain control.

Conclusion

Administration of biologics using pen-type devices is easier, and the introduction of home self-injection leads to a reduction in outpatient visits and copayment.

Real-world outcomes of mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma patients - retrospective cohort study in Slovakia

AIMS

Mepolizumab, a fully-humanized recombinant IgG1 kappa monoclonal antibody directed against IL-5, has shown improved asthma control and lung function in randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-world clinical experience in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab in Slovakia.

METHODS

A retrospective, non-interventional study based on medical records of all adult asthma patients initiating mepolizumab between November 1, 2017 and January 31, 2019, completing 12 months of treatment. At baseline, general and clinical profile data were recorded 12 months prior to treatment. Primary and secondary endpoints described the results of mepolizumab use at 2, 6, and 12 months after the initiation and compared to baseline. Statistical testing of individual change (in each patient) in selected parameters was performed.

RESULTS

The cohort included 17 patients with particularly severe asthma at baseline, with frequent severe exacerbations (SE, median 5 [IQR 4-6]/patient/year), high blood eosinophil counts (median 0.6x109/L), frequent oral corticosteroid (OCS) dependence (82.35%), median dose 15 (IQR 7.5-20) mg/day, impaired lung function, and a spectrum of comorbidities. In a one-year follow-up, the data showed reductions in median SE (0 [IQR 0-1] patient/year, eosinophilia (median 0.175x109/L) and OCS maintenance dose (median 6.25 [IQR 2.5-20] mg/day), all statistically significant after 12 months on mepolizumab. Improved and stabilised lung functions throughout the cohort and a reduced incidence of nasal polyposis were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide clinical evidence of mepolizumab efficacy in a real sample of patients with severe asthma when administered in routine care settings in Slovakia.

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort.

METHODS

We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy.

RESULTS

Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

Long-Term Efficacy of Mepolizumab at 3 Years in Patients with Severe Asthma: Comparison with Clinical Trials and Super Responders

The efficacy mepolizumab in severe asthmatic patients is proven in the literature. Primarily to study the effect of mepolizumab on exacerbations, steroid dependence, and the continuation of efficacy in the long term. Secondarily to evaluate the effect of the drug on nasal polyps. Analyzing data from SANI (Severe Asthma Network Italy) clinics, we observed severe asthmatic patients treated with mepolizumab 100 mg/4 weeks, for a period of 3 years. 157 patients were observed. Exacerbations were reduced from the first year (-84.6%) and progressively to 90 and 95% in the second and third ones. Steroid-dependent patients decreased from 54% to 21% and subsequently to 11% in the second year and 6% in the third year. Patients with concomitant nasal polyps, assessed by SNOT-22, showed a 49% reduction in value from baseline to the third year. The study demonstrated the long-term efficacy of mepolizumab in a real-life setting.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

Impact of Anti-IL5 Therapies on Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA) counts for more than 25% of cases of severe asthma. The main factors that impair the quality of life of these patients are high doses of oral corticosteroids, the presence of exacerbations, and reduced lung function. The objective of this study was to evaluate, in real life, the clinical improvement of patients with SUA treated with anti-interleukin 5 (IL5) therapies: mepolizumab and benralizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study that included patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma in a tertiary hospital receiving biological therapies. Three types of response were evaluated: improvement in lung function, reduction in exacerbations, and decrease in the use of oral corticosteroids. After 12 months of treatment, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, the use of oral corticosteroids, and blood eosinophil levels for both biological therapies (p < 0.001). Lung function improved, achieving a significant improvement in %FEV1 (p < 0.001), as well as asthma control, with a significant increase in asthma control test (ACT) scores in both therapies. The markers associated with the corticosteroid-saving effect were the low doses of oral corticosteroids and absence of exacerbations for mepolizumab, and higher blood eosinophilia, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and reduction in oral corticosteroid cycles for benralizumab. The greatest improvement in lung function in both therapies was linked to lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of other respiratory diseases. The reduction in exacerbations was associated with absence of exacerbations the previous year for mepolizumab and never smokers for benralizumab. The results of this real-life study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of an anti-IL5 biological therapy and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to treatment.

Long-term retention rate of mepolizumab treatment in severe asthma: a 36-months real-life experience

Objective: Mepolizumab is an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody that has shown, in different trials, the capacity to induce a reduction of exacerbations, an improvement of asthma control and a significant oral corticosteroid (OCS)-sparing effect. At present, there is limited real-life data about its long-term effects. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term effects of mepolizumab in real-life.Methods: We conducted a 36-months single-center retrospective study in 51 patients suffering from severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab 100 mg/4 weeks. Clinical outcomes (symptoms, annual asthma exacerbation rates) were monitored. Additionally, we estimated annualized OCS dosage before and after mepolizumab treatment. Mepolizumab retention rate in the follow-up period was also evaluated.Results: A significant decrease of the annual rate of asthma exacerbations in association with significant changes in asthma control was observed. Specifically, the exacerbation rate significantly fell from 5.1 ± 4 per person/year in the pre-mepolizumab treatment period to 0.8 ± 1.2 per person/year in the 12-follow-up. The clinical benefit was maintained throughout the study follow up period of 36 months. Mepolizumab treatment induced significant changes in both ACT and ACQ5 scores. The majority of patients (65.2%) experienced a more pronounced improvement of 50% or more in SNOT-22. A mean cumulative OCS exposure reduction of 5365.5 mg over a 3-year period for patients receiving mepolizumab was estimated. The drug retention rate was: 96% at 12 months; 93.7% at 18 months, 88.9% at 24 months and 82.3% at 36 months.Conclusions: Our real-life results confirm that mepolizumab treatment allows to control asthma symptoms, reduce exacerbations and OCS exposure in a significant and sustained manner.

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.

The new indications for biologicals in type 2 diseases: perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a literature review of what is on the market and under study for some diseases treated with drugs targeting type 2 (T2) inflammation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Literature data have shown that drugs targeting type 2 inflammation are effective in asthma and nasal polyposis, conditions for which they are on the market, and have promising expectations in the case of eosinophilic esophagitis, especially using anti-IL-5/IL-5 receptor and IL-4 receptor antibodies, while concerning eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangitis (EGPA), mepolizumab (MEP) was approved by FDA and EMA as a drug for the treatment of this condition because of the promising results obtained in trials and in real life.

SUMMARY

The use of these drugs is certainly an important achievement in the treatment of complex diseases such as those mentioned above, which are too often orphaned from innovative treatments and limited to the use of immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroid for their control.

Critical evaluation of asthma biomarkers in clinical practice

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