Efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with previous omalizumab treatment failure: Real-life observation

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.

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

The emergence of biologic therapies for the management of asthma has been a revolutionary change in our capacity to manage this disease. Since the launch of omalizumab, several other biologics have been marketed or are close to being marketed, suggesting that a plethora of monoclonal antibodies can be expected in the coming years. This will facilitate the transition to the paradigm of personalized medicine, but on the other hand will decisively further complicate the choice of the most appropriate treatment, in the absence of reliable enough biological markers. For these reasons, along with the relatively short time of use with these treatments, there are recurrently arising questions for which there are not even moderately documented answers, and for which the only solution must be based, with all reservations, on the combination of indirect evidence and expertise. In this paper, we attempt to address such questions, providing relevant commentaries and considering the whole width of the evidence base.

Omalizumab Transitions in Severe Asthma: Factors Influencing Switching Decisions and Timing for Optimal Response

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of switching from omalizumab to another biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma and evaluate factors that influenced the decision to switch and determined the optimal time for a good biologic response.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of severe asthma patients was conducted at Al-Rashed Allergy Center, a tertiary center in Kuwait. After meeting the eligibility criteria, patients were divided into two comparative groups: those continuing with omalizumab and those who started with omalizumab but switched to another biologic.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients with severe asthma were recruited, and only 33 had access to multiple biological treatments. Approximately 22.4% switched from omalizumab. Male patients with a history of ischemic heart disease, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyps were more likely to switch if they had higher levels of eosinophils in the sputum. This study showed that every 1% increase in sputum eosinophils doubled the likelihood of a switch. Patients with access to alternative biological options had a much shorter mean duration of omalizumab therapy before switching compared to those with only affordable omalizumab: 4.9 ± 1.5 years versus 8.9 ± 1.3 years (p < 0.001). The optimal time to predict the likelihood of a good response was less than 5.5 years, with an area under the curve of 0.91 and p = 0.003. This cutoff point provided a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 89% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An early transition from omalizumab, specifically within the first 5 years of treatment, in patients with severe asthma and higher sputum eosinophils may enhance the likelihood of a good response if other biological therapies were available.

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.

Treatment Patterns of Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma Treated by Pulmonologists in Spain

Introduction and objectives

The use of monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapies is becoming the new standard of care for severe uncontrolled asthma (SUA). Even though patients may qualify for one or more of these targeted treatments, based on different clinical criteria, a global vision of mAb prescription management in a large sample of hospitals is not well characterised in Spain.The objective was to give a global vision of mAb prescription management in a large sample of hospitals in Spain.

Materials and methods

We used an aggregate data survey method to interview pulmonology specialists in a large sample of Spanish centres (90). The following treatment-related information was obtained on patients treated with mAbs: specific mAbs prescribed, treatment interruption, switch and restart and the reasons for these treatment changes.

Results

mAb prescription was more frequent in females (13.3% females vs 7.4% males; p < 0.001). There were no differences in prevalence by hospital complexity level. In contrast, there were differences by geographical area. Omalizumab was the most prescribed mAb (6.2%), followed by mepolizumab (2.9%). Discontinuation of Omalizumab (due to a lack of effectivity) and switches from this mAb to mepolizumab were more frequent. Very few restarts to the first treatment were observed after a switch from ≥2 mAbs.

Conclusions

Omalizumab appeared as the most prescribed mAb in SUA but was also the most withdrawn; a specific and objective characterisation of patients with SUA, along with asthma phenotyping, and together with further evaluation of safety and effectiveness profiles, will lead to future progress in the management of SUA with mAbs.

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.

Canadian multidisciplinary expert consensus on the use of biologics in upper airways: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective.

METHODS

A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1-9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures-kappa coefficient ([Formula: see text]) value > 0.61.

RESULTS

After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease.

CONCLUSION

This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years.

Preparation, Identification and Application of β-Lactoglobulin Hydrolysates with Oral Immune Tolerance

To reveal, for the first time, the mechanism of T cell epitope release from β-lactoglobulin that induces oral immune tolerance, a strategy for the prediction, preparation, identification and application of β-lactoglobulin hydrolysate with oral immune tolerance was established using the bioinformatics method, hydrolysis, mass spectrometry, T cell proliferation assays and animal experiments. Some T cell epitope peptides of β-lactoglobulin were identified for the first time. The hydrolysates of trypsin, protamex and papain showed oral tolerance, among which the hydrolysates of protamex and papain have been reported for the first time. Although the neutral protease hydrolysate contained T cell epitopes, it still had allergenicity. The mechanism behind oral immune tolerance induction by T cell epitopes needs to be further revealed. In addition, the trypsin hydrolysate with abundant T cell epitopes was added to whey protein to prepare the product for oral immune tolerance. Overall, this study provides insights into the development of new anti-allergic milk-based products and their application in the clinical treatment of milk allergies.

Real-World clinical outcomes of asthma patients switched from reslizumab to mepolizumab or benralizumab

Introduction

Approximately 3%-10% of asthma patients will remain uncontrolled despite maximum, optimal conventional therapy. Treatment of severe refractory asthma often involves the use of targeted biological therapy. Randomised controlled trials have shown improvements in clinical parameters with these treatments but real-world data is lacking.

Methods

The clinical parameters, frequency of exacerbations, number of hospital admissions, asthma control questionnaire score (ACQ), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose of twenty asthma patients switched from reslizumab to benralizumab or mepolizumab at 1 year prior and 6 months after switching were compared, with adjustments for time.

Results

The mean frequency of exacerbations (0.35 v 0.3) and the mean ACQ were essentially unchanged (1.6 v 1.5) following the switch. The number of hospital admissions was one in the 6 months post switch compared to one in 1-year pre switch. 25% of patients were on maintenance OCS before and after switching but one patient required an increased dose post switch resulting in an increase in the mean maintenance OCS dose (1.6 mg to 2.4 mg). The mean FEV₁ was unchanged (80% v 77.9%) six months post switching. Regarding asthma control (n = 19), 47.4% were controlled pre and post switch (ACQ < 1.5), 36.8% remained uncontrolled despite switching, 10.5% improved control while 5.3% disimproved.

Conclusion

We present real-world clinical outcomes of asthma patients switched from reslizumab to either benralizumab or mepolizumab without a loss of clinical effectiveness in the majority.

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.

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.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

Asthma is a disease with high incidence and prevalence, and its severe form accounts for approximately 10% of asthmatics. Over the last decade, the increasing knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the disease allowed the development of biological drugs capable of sufficiently controlling symptoms and reducing the use of systemic steroids. The best-known mechanisms are those pertaining to type 2 inflammation, for which drugs were developed and studied. Those biological treatments affect crucial points of bronchial inflammation. Among the mechanisms explored, there were IgE (Omalizumab), interleukin 5 (Mepolizumab and Reslizumab), interleukin 5 receptor alpha (Benralizumab) and interleukin 4/13 receptor (Dupilumab). Under investigation and expected to be soon commercialized is the monoclonal antibody blocking the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (Tezepelumab). Seemingly under study and promising, are anti-interleukin-33 (itepekimab) and anti-suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 (astegolimab). With this study, we want to provide an overview of these drugs, paying particular attention to their mechanism of action, the main endpoints reached in clinical trials, the main results obtained in real life and some unclear points regarding their usage.

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.

Highlights in the advances of chronic rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a complex upper airway inflammatory disease with a broad spectrum of clinical variants. As our understanding of the disease pathophysiology evolves, so too does our philosophy towards the approach and management of CRS. Endotyping is gaining favour over phenotype-based classifications, owing to its potential in prognosticating disease severity and delivering precision treatment. Endotyping is especially useful in challenging CRS with nasal polyposis cases, for whom novel treatment options such as biologicals are now available. The latest European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) reflects these changes with updated rhinosinusitis classifications and new integrated care pathways. With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, physicians and rhinologists have to balance the responsibility of managing their patients' upper airway while adequately protecting themselves from droplet and aerosol transmission. This review summarises the key updates from EPOS2020, endotype-based classification and biomarkers. The role of biologicals in CRS and the lessons we can draw from their use in severe asthma will be examined. Finally, the principles of CRS management during COVID-19 will also be discussed.

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

The present prevailing inflammatory paradigm in asthma is of T2-high inflammation orchestrated by key inflammatory cells like Type 2 helper lymphocytes, innate lymphoid cells group 2 and associated cytokines. Eosinophils are key components of this T2 inflammatory pathway and have become key therapeutic targets. Real-world evidence on the predominant T2-high nature of severe asthma is emerging. Various inflammatory biomarkers have been adopted in clinical practice to aid asthma characterization including airway measures such as bronchoscopic biopsy and lavage, induced sputum analysis, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Blood measures like eosinophil counts have also gained widespread usage and multicomponent algorithms combining different parameters are now appearing. There is also growing interest in potential future biomarkers including exhaled volatile organic compounds, micro RNAs and urinary biomarkers. Additionally, there is a growing realisation that asthma is a heterogeneous state with numerous phenotypes and associated treatable traits. These may show particular inflammatory patterns and merit-specific management approaches that could improve asthma patient outcomes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma management but their use earlier in the course of disease is being advocated. Recent evidence suggests potential roles for ICS in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) for as needed use in mild asthma whilst maintenance and reliever therapy regimes have gained widespread acceptance. Other anti-inflammatory strategies including ultra-fine particle ICS, leukotriene receptor antagonists and macrolide antibiotics may show efficacy in particular phenotypes too. Monoclonal antibody biologic therapies have recently entered clinical practice with significant impacts on asthma outcomes. Understanding of the efficacy and use of those agents is becoming clearer with a growing body of real-world evidence as is their potential applicability to other treatable comorbid traits. In conclusion, the evolving understanding of T2 driven inflammation alongside a treatable traits disease model is enhancing therapeutic approaches to address inflammation in asthma.

Switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab: real-life experience from Southern Italy

BACKGROUND

Current availability of several biologic treatments for severe asthma makes it possible to choose the most appropriate for each patient. Sometimes a good percentage of patients with severe asthma may be eligible for biologics that target either the allergic phenotype or the eosinophilic one, but not all respond to that selected as first choice. The aim of our real-life study was to assess whether, for patients with severe eosinophilic allergic asthma, not previously controlled by the anti-IgE omalizumab, the shift to another biologic targeting interleukin-5, such as mepolizumab, may represent a good therapeutic choice.

METHODS

A total of 41 consecutive patients with severe, persistent allergic, eosinophilic asthma, uncontrolled despite treatment with omalizumab, were enrolled in seven certified Clinical Respiratory Units of Southern Italy (Catania, Catanzaro, Foggia, Bari, Palermo, and two University Respiratory Units of Naples) and shifted to mepolizumab without a wash-out period. Data at baseline, after at least 12 months of therapy with omalizumab, and after at least 12 months of treatment with mepolizumab were collected.

RESULTS

After at least 12 months of therapy with mepolizumab, patients experienced a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations/year (5.8 ± 1.8 versus 0.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.0001), an increment of asthma control test score (12 ± 2.7 versus 21.9 ± 2.7, p < 0.0001), an increase in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (1.56 ± 0.45 l versus 1.86 ± 0.52 l, p < 0.0001), and a reduction of blood eosinophils (584 ± 196 cells/µl versus 82 ± 56 cells/µl, p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients who were dependent on corticosteroids significantly decreased from 46% at baseline to 5% during treatment with mepolizumab.

CONCLUSION

Results of our real-life multicentric experience confirms that the shift to mepolizumab could be a good therapeutic strategy in severe eosinophilic allergic asthma not previously controlled by omalizumab. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Biologicals for severe asthma: what we can learn from real-life experiences?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma is a serious disease affecting about 5-10% of asthmatic patients. Often patients with this kind of asthma requires periodical courses or daily intake of oral corticosteroids, to control symptoms. In the last few years several biological drugs have been developed with the aim to decrease exacerbations and reduce or suspend intake of systemic steroids in severe asthmatic patients. Clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy and the safety of biological antibodies in asthma, but it is already known that randomized controlled trials alone are not sufficient to provide complete information on a drug.

RECENT FINDINGS

After marketing of monoclonal antibodies has been developed several real-life studies with the aim to observe how drugs, tested only on trial patients, are able to provide adequate effectiveness even on 'real' patients; indeed, it is well known that the latter differ in some characteristics from the patients of the trials.

SUMMARY

The results of this analysis confirm the good efficacy of the biologics similarly in real-life patients, also ensuring a promising safety even in periods of observation longer than those of the randomized controlled trials.

Characteristics of patients with severe asthma who experienced treatment failure with omalizumab

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, has been widely used in many countries, including Japan. However, some patients do not respond to omalizumab, and the cause of treatment failure has not been fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of adult asthma patients who failed to achieve disease control with omalizumab in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients in Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital between March 2009 and May 2016. The patient characteristics and factors for treatment failure with omalizumab were evaluated, as were treatment alternatives after discontinuation of omalizumab.

RESULTS

In total, 59 patients were included in this study. The omalizumab-ineffective group had a significantly higher number of patients with eosinophilic sinusitis (P = 0.001) and eosinophilic otitis media (P = 0.023) than the omalizumab-effective group. A multivariate analysis revealed that both eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (odds ratio: 23.4; P = 0.011) and eosinophilic otitis media (odds ratio: 6.71; P = 0.039) were associated with treatment failure with omalizumab. Most patients with eosinophilic comorbidities of the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) in the omalizumab-ineffective group received mepolizumab or benralizumab as alternative therapy, following which disease control was achieved.

CONCLUSION

Eosinophilic comorbidities of the ENT may affect treatment failure with omalizumab in patients with severe asthma. Anti-interleukin-5 antibody or anti-interleukin-5Rα antibody rather than anti-IgE antibody should be considered as an additional therapy for patients with severe asthma who have eosinophilic comorbidities of the ENT.

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

Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of switching from omalizumab (OMA) to mepolizumab (MEP) in patients eligible for both biologics, but not optimally controlled by omalizumab. We retrospectively enrolled uncontrolled severe asthmatic patients who switched from OMA to MEP during the last two years. Information included blood eosinophil count, asthma control test (ACT), spirometry, serum IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), OCS intake, drugs, exacerbations/hospitalizations, visits and diagnostic exams. Within the perspective of Italian National Health System, a pre- and post-MEP 12-month standardized total cost per patient was calculated. 33 patients were enrolled: five males, mean age 57 years, disease onset 24 years. At OMA discontinuation, 88% were OCS-dependent with annual mean rate of 4.0 clinically significant exacerbations, 0.30 exacerbations needing emergency room visits or hospitalization; absenteeism due to disease was 10.4 days per patient. Switch to MEP improved all clinical outcomes, reducing total exacerbation rate (RR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03–0.14), OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.005–0.08), and number of lost working days (Δ = − 7.9, 95% CI − 11.2 to − 4.6). Pulmonary function improved, serum IgE, FeNO and eosinophils decreased. Mean annual costs were €12,239 for OMA and €12,639 for MEP (Δ = €400, 95% CI − 1588–2389); the increment due to drug therapy (+ €1,581) was almost offset by savings regarding all other cost items (− €1,181). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not controlled by OMA, experienced comprehensive benefits by switching to MEP with only slight increases in economic costs.

Economic impact of mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma, in real life

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients' health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients.

METHODS

Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients.

RESULTS

106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945-2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06-0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15-0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients' improvement.

EAACI Biologicals Guidelines-Recommendations for severe asthma

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity, co-morbidities, complexity in care pathways and differences between national or regional healthcare systems. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of severe asthma, supporting the use of targeted treatments with biologicals. However, there are still many issues that require further clarification. These include selection of a certain biological (as they all target overlapping disease phenotypes), the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its cost-effectiveness. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of biologicals in severe asthma follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each biological and each outcome. In addition, a management algorithm for the use of biologicals in the clinic is proposed, together with future approaches and research priorities.

Switching between biologics in severe asthma patients. When the first choice is not proven to be the best

During the last decades, new treatments targeting disease mechanisms referred as biologics have been introduced in the therapy of asthma and currently, five monoclonal antibodies have been approved. Although these therapeutic agents have been formulated to target specific asthma endotypes, it is often difficult for the treating physician to identify which patient is the best candidate for each one of these specific treatments especially in the clinical scenario of a patient in whom clinical characteristics overlap between different endotypes, allowing the selection of more than one biologic agent. As no head-to-head comparisons between these biologics have been attempted, there is no evidence on the superiority of one biologic agent over the other. Furthermore, a physician's first therapeutic decision, no matter how carefully has been made, may often result in suboptimal clinical response and drug discontinuation, indicating the need for switching to a different biologic. In this short review, we discuss the available evidence regarding the switching between biologics in patients with severe asthma and we propose a simple algorithm on switching possibilities in case that the physicians' initial choice is proven not to be the best.

Effectiveness of mepolizumab therapy in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: Austrian real-life data

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab was effective in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, but evidence for symptom control in a real-world population is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To assess asthma symptom control, lung function, use of oral corticosteroids, and biomarkers after mepolizumab initiation in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Thirty-five adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and inadequate asthma symptom control, including former smokers and patients with cardiac disease, were enrolled in a prospective single-arm real-world study. Asthma control tests (ACT), exacerbations, spirometry (pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]), and oral corticosteroid doses were documented. Further assessments included peripheral blood eosinophil counts and adverse events.

RESULTS

After mepolizumab initiation asthma symptom control was significantly improved with the median ACT score of 12.5 at baseline (interquartile range [IQR ]10.5-19.5) rising to 19 (15-22.5) after 4 weeks. The improvement was maintained throughout the observation period of 20 weeks. Likewise, exacerbations were reduced. After 8 weeks of mepolizumab daily OCS doses were reduced from 6.25 mg daily (0-20) at baseline to 2.5 mg daily (0-11.9) at week 8 (P < 0.001). FEV1 remained generally unchanged during the course of the study. Eosinophil counts rapidly declined and remained at a low level during the observation period. No new safety signals were observed in this study.

CONCLUSION

Mepolizumab improved asthma symptom control and had a steroid-sparing effect. Efficacy in this real-world study was comparable to RCTs, despite a history of smoking and comorbidities in many of the patients included.

Biologics for the Treatments of Allergic Conditions: Severe Asthma

By selectively targeting specific steps of the immune inflammation cascade, biologic drugs for severe asthma have substantially contributed to increase the standard of care, to reduce drug-related morbidity. and most importantly to ameliorate patients' quality of life. Upcoming molecules are going to provide a chance for severe phenotypes besides Th2 high through the interaction with epithelial and innate immunity. Some practical aspects including optimal treatment duration, the possibility of a dose treatment modulation, the place and relevance of ICS in best responders are still under debate. Long-term safety, especially when interacting with innate immunity needs to be further investigated.

Clinical Development of Mepolizumab for the Treatment of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: On the Path to Personalized Medicine

The development of mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, is an example of a clinical development program that evolved over time based on sound, basic scientific principles. Initial clinical data on the effects of mepolizumab on lung function in a general asthmatic population were disappointing. However, it became clear that mepolizumab may be more effective against other clinical endpoints, particularly asthma exacerbations, in patients with more severe disease. Furthermore, a developing understanding of asthma disease pathobiology led to the identification of an appropriate target population and predictive biomarker for mepolizumab treatment: patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and blood eosinophil count. Mepolizumab use provides clinically meaningful benefits in this target population, fulfilling an unmet need. This Clinical Commentary Review describes the clinical development of mepolizumab and details of how this program informed the development of other biologic therapies in patients with severe asthma. This account highlights how a personalized approach toward treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, supported by a large body of scientific evidence, ultimately led to new and effective treatments and improved patient outcomes.

Severe Asthma and Biological Therapy: When, Which, and for Whom

Asthma is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that affects approximately 300 million people worldwide. About 5-10% of all asthmatics suffer from severe or uncontrolled asthma, associated with increased mortality and hospitalization, reduced quality of life, and increased health care costs. In recent years, new treatments have become available, and different asthma phenotypes characterized by specific biomarkers have been identified. Biological drugs are currently indicated for patients with severe asthma that is not controlled with recommended treatments. They are mostly directed against inflammatory molecules of the type 2 inflammatory pathway and are effective at reducing exacerbations, maintaining control over asthma symptoms, and reducing systemic steroid use, which is associated with well-known adverse events. Although biological drugs for severe asthma have had a major impact on the management of the disease, there is still a need for head-to-head comparison studies of biologics and to identify new biomarkers for asthma diagnosis, prognosis, and response to treatment. Identifying novel biomarkers could facilitate the development of therapeutic strategies that are precisely tailored to each patient's requirements.

Long-term responsiveness to mepolizumab after failure of omalizumab and bronchial thermoplasty: Two triple-switch case reports

Severe asthma affects between 5 and 10% of patients with asthma worldwide and requires best standard therapies at maximal doses. A subgroup of patients remains refractory to all treatments. We describe two case reports with severe allergic asthma who progressively worsened over the years despite the best therapy. The patients were first treated with omalizumab, which was completely ineffective, and then with bronchial thermoplasty (BT), again without clinical benefit. Since our patients met the AIFA criteria for inclusion in mepolizumab treatment, a therapy with this anti-IL5 biological agent was initiated. In the first case (a 53-year-old female), after the second mepolizumab administration, symptoms improved progressively, with a reduction in the number and severity of exacerbations, so the patient could finally be discharged from hospital. At follow-up, it was possible to reduce oral corticosteroids and continuing with inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta-agonists and montelukast. The patient had only one exacerbation/year. Symptom control and quality of life improved significantly. In the second case report (a 55-year-old male), after the sixth mepolizumab administration, symptoms improved progressively, with a reduction in the number and severity of exacerbations. At follow-up, it was possible to reduce and stop oral corticosteroids, continuing with inhaled therapy and montelukast. Symptom control and quality of life improved significantly.These are the first cases of patients unresponsive to sequential omalizumab and BT but with good and prolonged clinical response to mepolizumab. Both cases suggest that also after the failure of two consecutive third-line treatments, a third treatment (mepolizumab) should be attempted.

One year of mepolizumab. Efficacy and safety in real-life in Italy

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma is a disease with a heavy socio-economic burden and a relevant impact on the life of patients. Mepolizumab (MEP) was recently introduced in practice. The previous data were favourable as efficacy and safety are concerned. Nowadays, we can report the clinical data after more than one year of use of MEP in the real-life setting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of MEP in a real life framework, mainly concerning asthma exacerbations, steroid dependence, effects on respiratory function and adverse events.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis was performed on 138 patients, treated with MEP for at least 12 months, and referred to eleven severe asthma clinics in Italy. All patients met the criteria for severe uncontrolled asthma according to ATS/ERS guidelines and prescribing MEP conditions according to the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA).

RESULTS

We could observe 138 patients (78 female, age 58 ± 10 years). The average age of onset of asthma was 34 ± 16 years. The blood eosinophil count decreased from 822 ± 491/μL at baseline to 117 ± 96/μL (p < .0001) after 12 months of therapy. Exacerbations decreased from 3.8/year to 0.7/year (-81%; p < .0001). Steroid-dependent patients before MEP (80%) with a daily dose of 10.1 ± 9.4 mg prednisone decrease at 28% after 12 months with a mean of 2.0 ± 4.2 mg/day (p < .0001). The occurrence of adverse events was overall low.

CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In this real-life setting, MEP confirmed its efficacy and safety profile, already shown in clinical trials. This was apparent concerning exacerbation rate, systemic steroids intake and safety.