'Real-world' effectiveness of omalizumab in adults with severe allergic asthma: a meta-analysis

Dupilumab Effectiveness in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma Non-Responsive to Omalizumab

Background/Objectives: Severe allergic asthma is usually treated with omalizumab; however, this drug may not be effective for every patient. By its action, dupilumab could be an alternative in these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with severe allergic asthma, non-responsive to omalizumab, according to the maintenance of their oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, an exacerbation rate decrease, or poor control of the disease, despite optimized treatment. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from severe asthma clinics was performed, observing the efficacy of the switch to dupilumab in patients who experienced a failed treatment with omalizumab. Results: Forty-two patients were included. Dupilumab proved to be effective in patients who experienced a failed omalizumab treatment, with a significant reduction in the exacerbation number and OCS use. Furthermore, remission of the disease, according to the Severe Asthma Network of Italy (SANI) criteria, was achieved in 35 patients, with complete remission in 19 (45%) and partial remission in 16 (38%). The analysis of the predictors of the success of dupilumab therapy in achieving clinical remission, through univariate analysis of the data at baseline, showed that complete remission was more easily reached in patients with concomitant aspirin (ASA) intolerance or in those with nasal polyposis. Conclusions: Dupilumab is an effective drug for the treatment of patients with severe asthma with an allergic component, with better benefits in patients with an ASA intolerance or nasal polyposis.

[Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma]

Severe asthma affects 3%-10% of the world's population, according to estimates by the Global Initiative for ASTHMA (GINA). Allergic asthma is one of the most common phenotypes of severe asthma and it is characterized by allergen-induced type 2 inflammation in which immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a key mediator, making it an important therapeutic target. The introduction of targeted biological therapies or treatments has entered the management for severe asthma in the era of precision medicine, and the goal of treatment is clinical remission of the disease. There is a significant percentage of patients with severe allergic asthma who do not respond to treatments and whose symptoms are not controlled. In this paper, a group of experts in the management of severe allergic asthma reviewed and evaluated the most relevant evidence regarding the pathophysiology and phenotypes of severe allergic asthma, the role of IgE in allergic inflammation, allergen identification, techniques, biomarkers and diagnostic challenges, available treatments and strategies for disease management, with a special focus on biological treatments. From this review, recommendations were developed and validated through a Delphi consensus process with the aim of offering improvements in the management of severe allergic asthma to the professionals involved and identifying the unmet needs in the management of this pathology.

Asthma Phenotypes in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Asthma is a widespread disease affecting approximately 300-million people globally. This condition leads to significant morbidity, mortality, and economic strain worldwide. Recent clinical and laboratory research advancements have illuminated the immunological factors contributing to asthma. As of now, asthma is understood to be a heterogeneous disease. Personalized medicine involves categorizing asthma by its endotypes, linking observable characteristics to specific immunological mechanisms. Identifying these endotypic mechanisms is paramount in accurately profiling patients and tailoring therapeutic approaches using innovative biological agents targeting distinct immune pathways. This article presents a synopsis of the key immunological mechanisms implicated in the pathogenesis and manifestation of the disease's phenotypic traits and individualized treatments for severe asthma subtypes.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

Aims. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from 4 major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methods. Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe astma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, and the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L) and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC versus OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.Results. Per-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that base-case results.Conclusion. Whereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard-of-care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab Treatment Over a 16-Year Follow-Up: When a Clinical Trial Meets Real-Life

Purpose

Treatment of severe asthma has made great strides thanks to rapid progress in understanding immune response and inflammatory pathways. This led to the advent of the first biologic for severe allergic asthma (SAA), omalizumab. Although the long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab has been confirmed, increasingly longer follow-up data can further reinforce this evidence and potentially provide new ones, for example on any loss of efficacy or the appearance of unexpected side effects. This study reports omalizumab treatment-related outcomes after 16 years of follow-up.

Patients and Methods

In this real-life retrospective study, an extension of a previous 9-year follow-up study on patients initially recruited in a clinical trial, we enrolled 8 adult patients with SAA followed-up from November 2005 to December 2021. Study subjects were selected based on omalizumab eligibility criteria.

Results

Exacerbation rate significantly decreased from 3.6 ± 2.1 events in year before index date to 0.1 ± 0.4 after 32 weeks of treatment (p < 0.0001). Mean annual number of mild-to-moderate exacerbations at 16 years was 0.88 compared with 1.8 in the year before the index date and 1.1 at 32 weeks. No hospitalizations were documented during the 16-year follow-up compared to 0.3 hospitalizations/patient in the year before the index date. Respiratory function also progressively and significantly improved. Regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs), The AQLQ and ACT significantly improved from baseline throughout the follow-up, particularly up to 9 years of follow-up. During the study, an overall reduction in doses of asthma medications was observed, with a significant OCS-sparing effect.

Conclusion

Our study, the longest clinical follow-up on patients treated with anti-IgE, confirms and amplifies the results of the studies carried out so far, as they are maintained over a very long interval of time without drops in efficacy without any type of side effect.