Comparison of anti-interleukin-5 therapies in patients with severe asthma: global and indirect meta-analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials

Prospective direct comparison of biologic treatments for severe eosinophilic asthma: Findings from the PRISM study

BACKGROUND

Although various monoclonal antibodies have been used as add-on therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), to the best of our knowledge, no direct head-to-head comparative study has evaluated their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of reslizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in patients with SEA.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective observational study in patients with SEA who had received 1 of these biologic agents for at least 6 months. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk of the first exacerbation event, adjusting for sputum or blood eosinophils and common asthma-related covariates. The annual exacerbation rate was analyzed using a negative binomial model, and a mixed-effect model was used to analyze changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and asthma control test score over time.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients with SEA were included in the analysis; 71 (50%) received dupilumab; 40 (28%) received reslizumab, and 30 (21%) received mepolizumab. During the 12-month follow-up, 27.5%, 43.3%, and 38.0% of patients in the reslizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab groups, respectively, experienced at least 1 exacerbation. However, after adjusting for confounding factors, the dupilumab and mepolizumab groups showed similar outcomes in time-to-first exacerbation, exacerbation rate, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and asthma control test score to those of the reslizumab group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with SEA, treatment with reslizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab resulted in comparable clinical outcomes within a 12-month period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The cohort protocol was sanctioned by the Institutional Review Board of each study center (clinicaltrial.gov identifier NCT05164939).

Long-term multicenter comparison shows equivalent efficacy of monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma therapy

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (biologics) drastically changed severe asthma therapy. Mepolizumab (anti-interleukin (IL) 5), benralizumab (anti-IL5 receptor alpha), and dupilumab (anti-IL4/13) are the most used biologics in this context. While all biologics are efficient individually, the choice of biologic is complicated by insufficient data on their comparative long-term treatment efficacy. Here, we compare the real-life efficacy of these biologics in asthma therapy over 12 months.

METHODS

280 severe asthma patients treated with mepolizumab (129/280, 46%), benralizumab (83/280, 30%) or dupilumab (68/280, 24%) for one year were analyzed retrospectively. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. Endpoints were changes pulmonary function (PF), exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and dose, asthma control test (ACT) score and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels as well as responder status measured by the recently published "Biologic Asthma Response Score" (BARS).

RESULTS

All biologics led to significant improvements in PF, ACT and OCS dose. Only Mepolizumab and Benralizumab significantly decreased the exacerbation rate, while only Mepolizumab and Dupilumab significantly decreased FeNO. Responder rates measured by BARS were high across all groups: roughly half of all patients achieved full response and most of the remainder achieved at least partial responder status. Overall, outcomes were similar between groups after both 6 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

All biologics showed great efficacy in individual parameters and high responder rates measured by BARS without a clinically relevant advantage for any antibody. Response was usually achieved after 6 months and retained at 12 months, emphasizing the utility of early response assessment.

Smaller Differences in the Comparative Effectiveness of Biologics in Reducing Asthma-Related Hospitalizations Compared With Overall Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of respiratory biologics remains sparse.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in a matched retrospective cohort of patients with asthma.

METHODS

We identified patients with asthma aged ≥18 years who were incident users of these biologics between November 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023, in administrative claims data from the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database. We compared asthma-related exacerbations and hospitalizations in the 12 months since biologic prescription in pairwise comparisons of propensity score-matched cohorts. Covariates used in matching included age, sex, allergic comorbidities, baseline asthma medications use, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients on mepolizumab, 1300 on benralizumab, 1170 on omalizumab, and 1863 on dupilumab were identified. The average age was 55 years, and two-thirds of the participants were female. At baseline, over 80% of these individuals had an active prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Almost half of patients on dupilumab had concomitant nasal polyposis compared with 6% to 13% of patients on the other biologics. Covariates were balanced after matching. In matched analyses, dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of exacerbations over the follow-up period (vs dupilumab): mepolizumab (IRR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.64), omalizumab (IRR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.58), benralizumab (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41). For exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, benralizumab and mepolizumab were associated with the lowest incidence of hospitalizations, and the greatest difference was between mepolizumab versus dupilumab (IRR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of overall exacerbations, and mepolizumab with the lowest incidence of asthma hospitalizations in this administrative claims-based cohort of individuals with asthma. Despite matching propensity scores, residual confounding, such as baseline eosinophil count, may explain some of these findings.

Biologics in severe asthma: A pragmatic approach for choosing the right treatment for the right patient

The development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting specific components of the pathways relevant to asthma pathophysiology has revolutionized treatment of severe asthma both in adults and children and helped to further unravel the heterogeneity of this disease. However, the availability of multiple agents, often with overlapping eligibility criteria, creates a need for pragmatic guidance for specialists undertaking care of patients with severe asthma. In this review, we provide an overview of the data supporting the clinical efficacy of biologics in distinct asthma phenotypes/endotypes. We also focus on the role of biomarkers and treatable traits, including comorbidities, in the choice of asthma biologics, highlight which treatments have been demonstrated to be steroid sparing in corticosteroid dependent asthma, and provide practical guidance that can drive shared decision making on treatment choice with patients. In addition, we summarize what is known to date regarding long-term safety of these drugs, and lastly, discuss future directions in biologics research.

WITHDRAWN: Prospective direct comparison of biological treatments on severe eosinophilic asthma: Findings from the PRISM study

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).

CONCLUSION

There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

The Clinical Efficacy of Type 2 Inflammation-Specific Agents Targeting Interleukins in Reducing Exacerbations in Severe Asthma: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Monoclonal antibodies against type 2 inflammatory pathways are currently promising therapeutics for severe asthma. The aim of this study was to determine how well type 2 (T2) inflammation-specific agents targeting interleukins reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations (AE) in patients with severe asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The primary outcome was the reduction rate of annualized AEs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 17 studies comprising 11800 subjects. A total of 6197 patients received T2-specific agents (benralizumab, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and tralokinumab). Overall, T2-specific agents were significantly associated with a lower risk of AE, compared with placebo [rate ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.66]. Among all studied agents, only tralokinumab did not demonstrate a reduction in AE. The efficacy of T2-specific agents in reducing AE was maintained regardless of the pathway used. A subgroup analysis indicated that T2-specific agents further reduced the risk of AE in patients with eosinophil counts of ≥300 cells/µL (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that T2-specific agents are significantly associated with a reduced rate of AE, compared with placebo. Their efficacy appears to be enhanced in patients with eosinophil counts of ≥300 cells/µL.

The new era of add-on asthma treatments: where do we stand?

Globally, a small proportion (5–12%) of asthma patients are estimated to have severe disease. However, severe asthma accounts for disproportionately high healthcare resource utilization. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) management committee recommends treating patients with asthma with inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β₂-agonists and, when needed, adding a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist or biologic agent. Five biologics, targeting different effectors in the type 2 inflammatory pathway, are approved for asthma treatment. However, biologics have not been compared against each other or add-on inhaled therapies in head-to-head clinical trials. As a result, their positioning versus that of current and anticipated small-molecule strategies is largely unknown. Furthermore, with the emergence of biomarkers for predicting response to biologics, a more personalized treatment approach—currently lacking with inhaled therapies—may be possible. To gain perspective, we reviewed recent advances in asthma pathophysiology, phenotypes, and biomarkers; the place of biologics in the management and personalized treatment of severe asthma; and the future of biologics and small-molecule drugs. We propose an algorithm for the stepwise treatment of severe asthma based on recommendations in the GINA strategy document that accounts for the broad range of phenotypes targeted by inhaled therapies and the specificity of biologics. In the future, both biologics and small molecules will continue to play key roles in the individualized treatment of severe asthma. However, as targeted therapies, their application will continue to be focused on patients with certain phenotypes who meet the specific criteria for use as identified in pivotal clinical trials.

Effectiveness of Switching to Benralizumab in Severe Refractory Eosinophilic Asthma

Purpose

Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the α subunit of the IL-5 receptor. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of this agent with respect to lung function and symptom control in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of benralizumab after switching previous treatment with other monoclonal antibodies.

Patients and Methods

We performed a multicenter retrospective study under conditions of daily clinical practice. The study population comprised consecutively included patients with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma whose initial treatment with omalizumab or mepolizumab was switched to benralizumab. Patients were evaluated at 4 and 12 months after starting treatment with benralizumab. We analyzed asthma control, number of severe exacerbations, corticosteroid cycles, visits to the emergency department, and hospital admissions, as well as lung function. Similarly, we evaluated the response to treatment according to previously established criteria.

Results

We evaluated 40 patients who switched from omalizumab (n=16) or mepolizumab (n=24) to benralizumab. The reasons for switching were lack of response in 30 cases, adverse effects in 9, and patient request in 1. Switching was followed by a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations, visits to the emergency department, and corticosteroid cycles, as well as improved ACT both at 4 and 12 months. However, no significant improvement in lung function was observed. Asthma control (including complete response and control) was achieved in 55% of patients (n=22) at 12 months. Specifically, a complete response was achieved in 30% of patients at 12 months (66.7% switching from omalizumab and 33.3% from mepolizumab).

Conclusion

Patients diagnosed with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma who experience a partial response with omalizumab or mepolizumab could benefit from switching to benralizumab. This approach can reduce the number of exacerbations, visits to the emergency department, and corticosteroid cycles and improve control of asthma.

Clinical and Lung Function Outcomes After Anti-IgE or Anti-IL5 Therapy in Severe Asthma

Background

Although there have been indirect comparisons of the relative efficacy of mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) and benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα) in severe asthma patients, long-term direct head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Here, we (i) examined the effect of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and omalizumab on symptom control and lung function parameters over time; and (ii) compared the efficacy of mepolizumab and benralizumab on symptom control and lung function outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with severe asthma taking anti-IgE (omalizumab; n = 24), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, n = 23), or anti-IL-Rα (benralizumab; n = 12) therapy. Data were extracted on (i) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) scores; (ii) forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁); and (iii) peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) at 4–6 months and 1 year and documented reductions in exacerbations. Clinical and lung function outcomes were compared between patients taking mepolizumab and benralizumab and over time.

Results

There were significant decreases in ACQ-5 scores (3.3 ± 0.93 to 1.7 ± 0.98 for mepolizumab, 3.5 ± 0.72 to 1.6 ±0.89 for benralizumab, and 3.5 ± 0.95 to 1.7 ± 1.1 for omalizumab; t-test, all p < 0.0001) but not increases in FEV₁ and PEFR for all three agents after 4–6 months of therapy, which persisted but did not decrease further at one year. There were trends toward a greater percentage increase in FEV₁ and PEFR from baseline and a decrease in the number of exacerbations in patients taking benralizumab than those taking mepolizumab.

Conclusion

Although limited by a small sample size, this real-world, head-to-head comparison of mepolizumab and benralizumab is consistent with comparative data on asthma biologicals and indirect comparisons showing no major difference in efficacy. The study also generates new testable hypotheses about the efficacy of asthma biologicals in different patient populations.

Tezepelumab compared with other biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.

Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting IL-5 or IL-5Rα in Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Although the predominant airway inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is neutrophilic, approximately 20-40% of COPD patients present with eosinophilic airway inflammation. Compared with non-eosinophilic COPD patients, eosinophilic COPD patients are characterized by a greater number of total exacerbations and higher hospitalization rates. Furthermore, anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) therapy, consisting of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting IL-5 or IL-5 receptor α (IL-5Rα), has been proven to be effective in severe eosinophilic asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-5 therapy in eosinophilic COPD. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to August 2020 (updated in June 2021) to identify studies comparing anti-IL-5 therapy (including mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab) with placebo in eosinophilic COPD patients. Results: Anti-IL-5 therapy was associated with a decrease in acute exacerbation rate (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95, I ² = 0%) and the severe adverse events (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97, I ² = 0%). However, no significant improvement was observed in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) (WMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03, I ² = 25.9%), SGRQ score (WMD -1.17; 95% CI -2.05 to -0.29, I ² = 0%), and hospital admission rate (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07, I ² = 20.8%). Conclusion: Anti-IL-5 therapy significantly reduced the annual acute exacerbation rate and severe adverse events in eosinophilic COPD patients. However, it did not improve lung function, quality of life, and hospitalization rate.

From Biomarkers to Novel Therapeutic Approaches in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous and complex disorder. In this review, we provided a comprehensive overview of biomarkers involved in COPD, and potential novel biological therapies that may provide additional therapeutic options for COPD. The complex characteristics of COPD have made the recommendation of a generalized therapy challenging, suggesting that a tailored, personalized strategy may lead to better outcomes. Existing and unmet needs for COPD treatment support the continued development of biological therapies, including additional investigations into the potential clinical applications of this approach.

Variability of Type 2 inflammatory markers guiding biologic therapy of severe asthma: A 5-year retrospective study from a single tertiary hospital

Background

Currently, biotherapy is mainly administered to treat patients with severe asthma with the Type 2 (T2) inflammation phenotype. The variability of T2 inflammatory markers remains poorly understood.

Objective

We aimed to describe the individual distributions of different biomarkers at varying thresholds and their variation patterns in participants with severe asthma.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of participants who had completed 2 or more fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and peripheral blood eosinophil counts in our centre within 5 years. The individual distribution of biomarkers (blood or sputum eosinophils, FeNO, and serum total IgE) with repeated measurements at different thresholds was analysed. The varied patterns of biomarkers were analysed by cluster analysis.

Results

A total of 241 eligible participants were screened. Through long-term longitudinal multiple measurements, we found that approximately 50% of severe asthmatics had blood eosinophil levels fluctuating around the threshold defined by biological agents. FeNO persisted at levels >19.5 ppb or 25 ppb in more than half of patients; about 30% of participants crossed this threshold. In our centre, 47.4% of participants consistently exceeded sputum eosinophils >3%, and 47.4% of patients crossed this threshold. Approximately 66.7% of participants had more than 50% alterations of serum total IgE, and 98.1% of participants continued to have IgE levels greater than 30 IU/mL. We used cluster analysis to classify variability and levels of FeNO and blood eosinophils and identified 4 patient clusters. Cluster 1 can be summarised as T2 severe asthma with low blood eosinophil levels and stability. Cluster 2 can be summarised as asthma with continuous increase and small fluctuations in various T2 inflammatory markers. Cluster 3 can be summarised as a non/low-T2 inflammatory phenotype. Cluster 4 can be summarised as a stable, moderate T2 inflammatory phenotype.

Conclusion

We identified the distributions and variable patterns of the T2 inflammatory markers currently used to guide asthma biotherapy in clinical practice. The longitudinal comprehensive multiple assessments of T2 inflammatory markers provide support for initiating biologic therapy patients with severe asthma whose biomarker levels vary.

Anti-interleukin-5 in the Management of Eosinophilic Asthma: A Review of Effectiveness, Safety, and Budgetary Impact From the Perspective of the Brazilian Health System

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-5 class therapy agents in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma and the financial impact of these drugs on the Brazilian and Mato Grosso public health systems.

METHODS

The literature review in important databases was guided by a structured research question including patient or population, intervention, comparator, outcome and type of study. The retrieved studies went through a screening, selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment process. A model with two scenarios, one with mepolizumab and the other with benralizumab, was created for budget impact analysis.

RESULTS

Evidence indicated that anti-interleukins-5 have an acceptable safety profile and can reduce exacerbation rates by up to 50% in the population with eosinophilic asthma; however, they showed no significant difference in quality of life. The adoption of these drugs in the Brazilian health system can impact the budget from R$ 40,379,731.50 to R$ 140,301,211.34 depending on the drug incorporated, considering a time horizon of 5 years. From the perspective of the state of Mato Grosso, the budget impact may reach, in the fifth year, an amount of R$ 1,301,210.58 and R$ 2,050.687.62 for the scenarios with mepolizumab and benralizumab, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Anti-interleukins-5 are promising treatments for eosinophilic asthma because they minimise exacerbations and are well tolerated and safe. The financial impact is large, implying that technology costs may be a barrier to accessing this treatment class.

Therapeutic Effects of an Anti-sialyl Lewis X Antibody in a Murine Model of Allergic Asthma

Asthma is an allergic disease that causes severe infiltration of leukocytes into the lungs. Leukocyte infiltration is mediated by the binding of sialyl Lewis X (sLex) glycans present on the leukocytes to E-and P-selectins present on the endothelial cells at the sites of inflammation. Here, we found that mouse eosinophils express sLex glycans, and their infiltration into the lungs and proliferation in the bone marrow were significantly suppressed by an anti-sLex monoclonal antibody (mAb) F2 in a murine model of ovalbumin-induced asthma. The percentage of eosinophils in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and bone marrow and serum IgE levels decreased significantly in the F2-administered mice. Levels of T helper type 2 (Th2) cytokines and chemokines, involved in IgE class switching and eosinophil proliferation and recruitment, were also decreased in the F2-administered mice. An ex vivo cell rolling assay revealed that sLex glycans mediate the rolling of mouse eosinophils on P-selectin-expressing cells. These results indicate that the mAb F2 exerts therapeutic effects in a murine model of allergen-induced asthma, suggesting that sLex carbohydrate antigen could serve as a novel therapeutic target for allergic asthma.

Will the asthma revolution fostered by biologics also benefit adult ICU patients?

PURPOSE

Asthma exacerbations are inflammatory events that rarely result in full hospitalization following an ER visit. Unfortunately, certain patients require prolonged support, including occasional external lung support through ECMO or ECCOR (with subsequent further exposure to other life-threatening issues), and some die. In parallel, biologics are revolutionizing severe asthma management, mostly in T2 high patients.

METHODS

We extensively reviewed the current unmet needs surrounding ICU-admitted asthma exacerbations, with a focus on currently available drugs and the underlying biological processes involved. We explored whether currently available T2-targeting drugs can reasonably be seen as potential players not only for relapse prevention but also as candidate drugs for a faster resolution of such episodes. The patient's perspective was also sought.

RESULTS

About 30% of asthma exacerbations admitted to the ICU do not resolve within five days. Persistent severe airway obstruction despite massive doses of corticosteroids and maximal pharmacologically induced bronchodilation is the main cause of treatment failure. Previous ICU admission is the main risk factor for such episodes and may eventually be considered as a T2 surrogate marker. Fatal asthma cases are hallmarked by poorly steroid-sensitive T2-inflammation associated with severe mucus plugging. New, fast-acting T2-targeting biologics (already used for preventing asthma exacerbations) have the potential to circumvent steroid sensitivity pathways and decrease mucus plugging. This unmet need was confirmed by patients who reported highly negative, traumatizing experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

There is room for improvement in the management of ICU-admitted severe asthma episodes. Clinical trials assessing how biologics might improve ICU outcomes are direly needed.

Real-World Multicenter Experience with Mepolizumab and Benralizumab in the Treatment of Uncontrolled Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Over 12 Months

Purpose

Treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) has been revolutionized by the development of monoclonal antibodies targeting underlying immunological pathways of eosinophilic asthma. Two of the most frequently used antibodies in clinical practice are mepolizumab, targeting interleukin (IL) 5 and benralizumab, targeting the IL5 receptor alpha. The comparative treatment efficacy of these antibodies remains unclear, particularly regarding long-term outcomes.

Patients and Methods

In this multicenter, retrospective study, we included 123 patients treated with mepolizumab and 64 patients treated with benralizumab for 12 months at one of three study sites in Germany. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. Endpoints were changes in pulmonary function (PF), exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and dose, asthma control test (ACT) score and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels.

Results

Both mepolizumab and benralizumab led to significant improvements in PF with an increase in median forced expiratory volume (FEV1) after 12 months from 59% to 74% for mepolizumab and 63% to 72% for benralizumab. Treatment also led to significant improvements in ACT scores after 12 months (mepolizumab: 13 [interquartile range (IQR) 9-17] to 19 [IQR 15-23]; benralizumab: 12 [IQR 9-16] to 22 [IQR 16-25]) as well as a reduction of mean OCS dose (mepolizumab 8 mg [IQR 5-12.5 mg] median prednisolone equivalent at baseline to 5 mg [IQR 3-7.5 mg]; benralizumab 7.5 mg [IQR 5-15 mg] to 5 mg [IQR 2-10 mg]). The exacerbation rates were reduced significantly, irrespective of the treatment. Overall, changes were similar after 6 and 12 months of therapy.

Conclusion

Both mepolizumab and benralizumab are highly effective in the long-term treatment of SEA, with no clinically relevant differences in outcomes after 12 months of therapy. In both groups, improvements were similar after 6 and 12 months of therapy, underlining the feasibility of early treatment evaluation.

Real-World Effectiveness of Mepolizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5 (IL-5) used to treat severe eosinophilic asthma. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mepolizumab in the real world. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in the context of heterogeneity among patients, clinicians, and treatment regimens to study the effectiveness of mepolizumab in the real world.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for real-world studies on severe asthma treatment with mepolizumab as of June 30, 2020. Exacerbations, asthma-related hospitalizations, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) or Asthma Control Test (ACT), corticosteroid use, peripheral blood eosinophil counts, and the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide were selected as indicators to evaluate the effectiveness. Standardized mean differences by the Cohen method and mean differences were chosen as indicators of effect size. Cohen d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered as small, medium, and large effects, respectively. We used the Dersimonian-Laird random-effect model to quantify pooled effectiveness estimates.

FINDINGS

A total of 1457 patients from 13 studies were included in this review. At all time points, mepolizumab was associated with reductions in exacerbations (2.92 and 2.73 events per patient per year fewer at 6 and 12 months, respectively) and hospitalizations (0.36 events per patient per year fewer at 12 months); improvements in asthma control (ACQ scores reductions of 1.32 and 1.03 at 6 and 12 months, respectively; ACT scores increase of 6.52 at 6-12 months); slight improvements in pulmonary function (FEV₁ increase of 0.23 L at 1-3 months and 6-12 months, respectively); reductions in oral corticosteroid use (9.02- and 7.68-mg decrease at 6 and 12 months, respectively); and reductions in peripheral blood eosinophil counts (decreases of 559.11 cells/μL and 599.17 cells/μL at 1-3 months and 6-12 months, respectively) and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (13-ppb reduction at 6-12 months).

IMPLICATIONS

Our study suggests that mepolizumab is associated with improvements in several clinically meaningful real-world outcomes. This study is a supplement to and extension of the efficacy of randomized controlled trials of mepolizumab. (Clin Ther. 2021;XX:XXX-XXX) © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Severe asthma: adding new evidence - Latin American Thoracic Society

This document constitutes a summary of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) prepared at the initiative of the Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT). Due to new evidence in the treatment of severe asthma, it was agreed to select six clinical questions, and the corresponding recommendations are provided herein. After considering the quality of the evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable impacts and the feasibility and acceptance of procedures, the following recommendations were established. 1) We do not recommend the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus formoterol as rescue medication in the treatment of severe asthma. 2) We suggest performing many more high-quality randomised studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma. 3) Omalizumab is recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma with serum IgE levels above 30 IU. 4) Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 drugs are recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 150 cells·µL⁻¹ for mepolizumab and above 400 cells·µL⁻¹ for reslizumab). 5) Benralizumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 300 cells·µL⁻¹). 6) Dupilumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled allergic and eosinophilic asthma and in adult patients with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

Severe #asthma: evidence @ALAToraxhttps://bit.ly/34jYhg2

Targeting the IL-5 pathway in eosinophilic asthma: a comparison of mepolizumab to benralizumab in the reduction of peripheral eosinophil counts

Background

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are biologics approved for severe eosinophilic asthma. Mepolizumab is an anti-interlukin-5 (IL-5) antibody while benralizumab is an anti-interleukin-5 receptor alpha (IL-5Rα) antibody targeting the IL-5 receptor on eosinophils. Both therapies reduce oral corticosteroid requirements and asthma exacerbations. However, no head-to-head studies have been published. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of peripheral eosinophil reduction of mepolizumab and benralizumab.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were approved for either IL-5 agent. Patients with noted non-adherence or those who were on fluctuating doses of corticosteroids for non-asthma related illnesses were excluded. The last detectable eosinophil count for each patient prior to start of therapy was compared to the highest eosinophil count noted after therapy start with at least 30 days of adherence.

Results

Thirty-six patients taking mepolizumab and 19 patients taking benralizumab met the inclusion criteria and had both pre-treatment and post-treatment eosinophil counts. Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between those on mepolizumab and benralizumab therapy. The mean pre-therapy serum eosinophil count did not statistically differ between patients on mepolizumab (597.2 cells/µL) compared to benralizumab (521.6 cells/µL), p = 0.3769. While both therapies resulted in a significant decrease in eosinophil count (p < 0.0001); the mean decrease did not statistically differ between patients taking mepolizumab compared to those on benralizumab, p = 0.9079. Nonetheless, 100% of patients receiving benralizumab had undetectable eosinophil counts post-therapy compared to 31% of patients receiving mepolizumab (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Both mepolizumab and benralizumab are potent targets of the IL-5 pathway with the ability to significantly reduce peripheral eosinophil counts. While there is there is no statistical difference in the magnitude of eosinophil reduction offered by each agent, benralizumab is able to decrease peripheral eosinophil counts to 0 cells/µL in more patients than mepolizumab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain

AIM

To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting.

Switch from IL-5 to IL-5-Receptor α Antibody Treatment in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

Background

Anti-IL-5 antibodies represent an established therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), but some patients show inadequate response. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of a switch to anti-IL-5Rα therapy in patients with inadequate response to anti-IL-5 therapy.

Methods

In this retrospective multi-centre, real-life study, we analysed all SEA patients switched from anti-IL-5 to anti-IL-5Rα therapy due to inadequate response or intolerability. Pulmonary function tests, blood gas analyses, asthma control tests (ACT) and oral corticosteroid (OCS) usage were analysed and compared at three timepoints: baseline (BL, before anti-IL-5 therapy), timepoint 1 (T1, under anti-IL-5 therapy) and timepoint 2 (T2, under anti-IL-5Rα therapy).

Results

Of 665 patients treated with anti-IL-5 antibodies, 70 were switched to anti-IL-5Rα and 60 were included in the analysis. Median treatment duration was 8 months [IQR 5; 15] for anti-IL-5 and 5 months [IQR 4; 6] for anti-IL-5Rα therapy. FEV₁ was 61% of predicted at BL [IQR 41; 74], 61% [IQR 43; 79] at T1 and 68% [IQR 49; 87] at T2 (p_T1-T2=0.011). ACT score was 10 [IQR 8; 13], 16 [IQR 10; 19] and 19 [IQR 14; 22], respectively (both p<0.001). The number of patients requiring OCS was reduced from 41 (BL) to 32 (T1) and 19 (T2) (both p<0.001). Ten patients discontinued anti-IL-5Rα therapy due to insufficient efficacy (n=7) and adverse events (n=3).

Conclusion

Switching from anti-IL-5 to anti-IL-5Rα therapy in patients with inadequate response was associated with significantly improved FEV₁, asthma control and OCS reduction.

The evolving algorithm of biological selection in severe asthma

New therapeutic options for severe asthma have recently emerged, mostly in the form of monoclonal antibodies ("biologicals") targeting relevant inflammatory pathways. Currently available agents target different aspects of "Type 2" immunity, and their indications often include overlapping patient groups. We present a round-table discussion that took place during the Annual Meeting of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG), on the reasoning behind the use of different add-on medications for severe asthma, and crucially, on selection strategies. The proposed rational is based on current evidence, including real-life studies, as well as on the appreciation of the relevant complexities. Direct head-to-head comparisons of biologicals are lacking; therefore, algorithms for initial choice and potential switch between agents should be based on understanding the key characteristics of different options and the development of a clear plan with predefined targets and shared decision-making, in a structured way.

Infectious Complications of Biological and Small Molecule Targeted Immunomodulatory Therapies

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in our approach to therapeutic immunosuppression. We have moved from relying on broadly active traditional medications, such as prednisolone or methotrexate, toward more specific agents that often target a single receptor, cytokine, or cell type, using monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, or targeted small molecules. This change has transformed the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, cancers, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease, but along with the benefits have come risks. Contrary to the hope that these more specific agents would have minimal and predictable infectious sequelae, infectious complications have emerged as a major stumbling block for many of these agents. Furthermore, the growing number and complexity of available biologic agents makes it difficult for clinicians to maintain current knowledge, and most review articles focus on a particular target disease or class of agent. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge about infectious complications of biologic and small molecule immunomodulatory agents, aiming to create a single resource relevant to a broad range of clinicians and researchers. For each of 19 classes of agent, we discuss the mechanism of action, the risk and types of infectious complications, and recommendations for prevention of infection.

A comparison of biologicals in the treatment of adults with severe asthma - real-life experiences

BACKGROUND

Anti-IgE (omalizumab) and anti-IL5/IL5R (reslizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab) treatments are available for severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma. In these patients, studies have shown beneficial effects in oral corticosteroid use and exacerbations. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the effect of biological therapy on severe asthma and to compare different therapies.

METHODS

We collected and analysed results of anti-IL5/IL5R and anti-IgE therapies for asthma from January 2009 until October 2019 in specialized care. We compared number of exacerbations, asthma symptoms and use of per oral corticosteroids and antimicrobics because of asthma before and during biological therapy, and in a separate analysis need for per oral corticosteroids, antimicrobics or surgery due to upper respiratory tract diseases in asthmatics receiving biologicals. The analyses were done using the Chi square test, T-test or Mann-Whitney U -test, the Kruskall-Wallis test or the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Of 64 patients, 40 used continuous per oral corticosteroid therapy prior to biological therapy. The mean daily dose of per oral corticosteroid was reduced in those with anti-IL5/IL5R therapy (- 3.0 mg, p = 0.02). The number of annual per oral corticosteroid courses decreased in both the anti-IL5/IL5R (- 2.8 courses, p < 0.05) and anti-IgE groups (- 1.3 courses, p < 0.05). The number of annual antibiotic courses (- 0.7 courses, p = 0.04) and total number of exacerbation events (- 4.4 events/year, p < 0.05) were reduced in the anti-IL5/IL5R group. In the 55 asthma patients analysed for upper respiratory tract findings, the results suggested a reduction in need for chronic rhinosinusitis surgery during biological therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Results with biological therapies in this real-life clinical setting are comparable to those reported in clinical trials. Biological therapy reduces exacerbations and per oral corticosteroid use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04158050, retrospectively registered 6.11.2019.

Needs for Systems Approaches to Better Treat Individuals With Severe Asthma: Predicting Phenotypes and Responses to Treatments

Asthma is a frequent heterogeneous multifactorial chronic disease whose severe forms remain largely uncontrolled despite the availability of many drugs and educational therapy. Several phenotypes and endotypes of severe asthma have been described over the last two decades. Typical type-2-immunity-driven asthma remains the most frequent phenotype, and several targeted therapies have been developed and are now available. On the contrary, non-type-2 immunity-driven severe asthma is less understood and still requires efficient innovative therapies. A personalized approach would allow improving asthma control with the help of robust biomarkers able to predict phenotypes/endotypes, exacerbations, response to targeted treatments and, in the future, possible curative options. Some data from large multicenter cohorts have emerged in recent years, especially in transcriptomics. These data have to be integrated and reproduced longitudinally to provide a systems approach for asthma care. In this focused review, the needs for such an approach and the available data will be reviewed as well as the next steps for achieving personalized medicine in asthma.

Antibodies targeting the interleukin-5 signaling pathway used as add-on therapy for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: a review of the mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety of the subcutaneously administered agents, mepolizumab and benralizumab

Introduction: Since the discovery of eosinophils in the sputum of asthmatic patients, several studies have offered evidence on their prominent role in the pathology and severity of asthma. Blood eosinophils, are a useful biomarker for therapy selection in severe asthma patients. IL-5 plays crucial role on maturation, activation, recruitment, and survival of eosinophils and constitutes an important therapeutic target for patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.Areas covered: This review focuses on the similarities and differences on mechanisms of action, efficacy, and safety, of two subcutaneously(SC) administered agents, the anti-interleukin(IL)-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab and the IL-5 receptor-α(IL-5Rα)-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody benralizumab. All information used was collected from PubMed using keywords such as severe asthma, eosinophils, IL-5, airway inflammation, asthma exacerbations, mepolizumab, benralizumab, anti-IL5, and anti-IL5R either as single terms or in several combinations.Expert opinion: Both mepolizumab and benralizumab are promising for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma resulting in asthma control improvement and exacerbations reduction and can serve as steroid-sparing agents. However, since no head-to-head comparisons exist, it is unknown whether their different mechanisms of action might be related to different efficacy in specific patients' sub-phenotypes. Long-term clinical observations will provide real-world evidence regarding their lasting effectiveness and safety.

Effect of Anti-IL5, Anti-IL5R, Anti-IL13 Therapy on Asthma Exacerbations: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several new treatments for severe asthma have become available in the last decade; yet, little data exist to guide their use in specific patient populations.

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis was conducted comparing the efficacy of FDA-approved monoclonal antibody therapies in preventing exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

PubMed and Ovid were searched from inception until July 2019 for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab, in preventing acute exacerbations of asthma. Studies were included if they reported data for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (defined in this meta-analysis as absolute eosinophil count ≥ 250 cells/μL). Annualized rate ratios for asthma exacerbations (during treatment) were calculated and converted to log rate ratios. Direct and indirect treatment estimates (for inter-drug differences) were analyzed using frequentist network meta-analysis methodology in R and treatments were ranked based on P-scores.

RESULTS

In total, nine studies were included in the final analysis. Network meta-analysis revealed that all drugs were superior to placebo in preventing rates of asthma exacerbation in the study population and no inter-drug differences existed. Dupilumab was found to have the greatest magnitudes of effect on decreasing log rate ratio of asthma exacerbation based on P-score (0.83).

CONCLUSION

Benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab are all associated with decreased asthma exacerbations in patients with eosinophilic asthma, with no significant inter-drug differences.

Anti-IL-5 Biologicals Targeting Severe Late Onset Eosinophilic Asthma

Improved knowledge about the pathogenesis of asthma has facilitated the development of novel drugs and provided hope for patients with severe asthma. After the short- and long-term success of omalizumab in severe allergic phenotype, researchers have targeted patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who comprise up to 45% of adult severe asthma. Interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-5 receptor subunit α play crucial roles in the development, maturation, and operation of eosinophils. Currently, patients treated with anti-IL-5 biologicals depleting eosinophils experience the positive efficacy of these drugs, especially with regard to the reduction of exacerbation rate. The aim of this review was to shed light on severe eosinophilic asthma treatment with these new currently available agents selectively targeting IL-5 or its receptor, discussing their usage including pre-treatment concerns, such as selecting the target population and choosing the right agent among them, and subsequent assessment of relevant effect and safety issues.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2017 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

In this article, we described the development in the field of allergy as described by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2017. Experimental models of allergic disease, basic mechanisms, clinical mechanisms, allergens, asthma and rhinitis and clinical allergy are all covered.

Reslizumab and mepolizumab for moderate-to-severe poorly controlled asthma: an indirect comparison meta-analysis

Aim: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg and mepolizumab 100 mg. Materials & methods: Eligible studies evaluated reslizumab and mepolizumab in patients with inadequately-controlled severe eosinophilic asthma. Using a Bayesian network meta-analysis, 95% credible intervals and posterior probabilities were reported. Results: Of 19 indirect efficacy comparisons performed in base-case (Global Initiative for Asthma 4/5 patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year) and overall populations, significant differences favoring reslizumab were observed for severe exacerbations, FEV₁ at 4 weeks and eosinophil counts at 4, 16 and 24 weeks, with no other significant differences including risk of adverse events. Conclusion: Indirect comparison of reslizumab and mepolizumab largely showed no significant differences in efficacy or safety.

Baseline blood eosinophil count as a predictor of treatment response to the licensed dose of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma

BACKGROUND

Previous analyses examining the relationship between blood eosinophil count and mepolizumab treatment effects in severe eosinophilic asthma have used a range of doses and administration routes.

METHODS

This post hoc meta-analysis included data from the MENSA (MEA115588/NCT01691521) and MUSCA (200862/NCT02281318) trials. Patients (≥12 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma who experienced ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year received either mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously (SC) or 75 mg intravenously, or placebo plus standard of care every 4 weeks. This meta-analysis reports data from patients receiving the licensed dose of mepolizumab (100 mg SC) or placebo only. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; secondary endpoints included rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visit, proportion of patients with no clinically significant exacerbations, and changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores. Analyses were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count (<150, ≥150, ≥300, ≥400, ≥500, ≥750, ≥1000, ≥150-<300, or ≥300-<500 cells/μL).

RESULTS

Mepolizumab reduced annual clinically significant exacerbation rates by 45%-85%, exacerbations requiring hospitalization/ER visit by 60%-70%, and increased the odds of no clinically significant exacerbations across all eosinophil threshold subgroups versus placebo, and improved all other secondary endpoints in subgroups ≥150 cells/μL. Greater treatment effects with increasing blood eosinophil count were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab demonstrated consistent clinical benefits in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL, confirming the suitability of this cut-off for identifying patients responsive to the licensed mepolizumab dose.

Comparison of IL-33 and IL-5 family mediated activation of human eosinophils

Eosinophils are the prominent inflammatory cell involved in allergic asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and hypereosinophilic syndrome and are found in high numbers in local tissue and/or circulating blood of affected patients. There is recent interest in a family of alarmins, including TSLP, IL-25 and IL-33, that are epithelial-derived and released upon stimulation of epithelial cells. Several genome wide association studies have found SNPs in genes encoding IL-33 to be risk factors for asthma. In two studies examining the direct role of IL-33 in eosinophils, there were differences in eosinophil responses. We sought to further characterize activation of eosinophils with IL-33 compared to activation by other cytokines and chemokines. We assessed IL-33 stimulated adhesion, degranulation, chemotaxis and cell surface protein expression in comparison to IL-3, IL-5, and eotaxin-1 on human eosinophils. Our results demonstrate that IL-33 can produce as potent eosinophil activation as IL-3, IL-5 and eotaxin-1. Thus, when considering specific cytokine targeting strategies, IL-33 will be important to consider for modulating eosinophil function.

Targeting cytokines to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Cytokines play a key role in orchestrating and perpetuating the chronic airway inflammation in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), making them attractive targets for treating these disorders. Asthma and some cases of COPD are mainly driven by type 2 immune responses, which comprise increased airway eosinophils, T helper 2 (T_H2) cells and group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) and the secretion of IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13. Clinical trials of antibodies that block these interleukins have shown reduced acute exacerbations and oral corticosteroid use and improvements in lung function and symptoms in selected patients. More recent approaches that block upstream cytokines, such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), show promise in improving patient outcome. Importantly, the clinical trials in cytokine blockade have highlighted the crucial importance of patient selection for the successful use of these expensive therapies and the need for biomarkers to better predict drug responses.

[Update in severe asthma physiopathology and treatments]

Asthma is an inflammatory airway disease which presentation is highly heterogeneous. Last two decades provided new clinical and basic data concerning asthma physiopathology that make global understanding much complex. Phenotypes based on clinical settings and paraclinical investigations from large cohorts confirm old paradigm (eosinophilic vs. non-eosinophilic asthma) but also introduce new concepts (obesity-related asthma, late onset asthma, etc.). Conversely, improvement of big data analytics allows to initiate new cohorts aiming at better understanding the pathophysiology underlying those phenotypes and unraveling new ones. However, clinical and therapeutic impacts of those big data need to be further detailed. In parallel, biotherapies and innovative techniques as bronchial thermoplasty become available for severe asthmatic patients who did not respond to specific treatment in the past. Development of a personalized medicine in severe asthma becomes an important challenge for tomorrow. This review will focus on new pathophysiological concepts arisen from large cohorts and new therapeutic strategies available and in progress for severe asthma.

An evaluation of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe asthma

Introduction: Asthma is considered one of the most common chronic conditions globally, characterized by variable airflow obstruction and symptoms. Severe asthma is diagnosed when asthma control requires high-intensity therapy or continues to remain uncontrolled despite treatment. Eosinophilic inflammation is known to be perpetuated by the activity of IL-5 in a proportion of severe asthma subjects, and targeting IL-5 may offer a therapeutic option. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role and pathogenesis of IL-5 and eosinophils in asthma and rationale of antagonizing IL-5 in severe eosinophilic asthma. Mepolizumab is the first of three anti-IL-5 biologics licensed in 2015 for use in this subgroup of patients. We discuss clinical and real-life studies leading up to its approval and post-marketing outcomes in terms of efficacy and safety to-date, as well as its pros and cons. Expert opinion: IL-5 antagonism has paved the way for an additional personalized therapeutic opportunity for use in severe asthma with eosinophilic inflammation, though there is limited evidence on the long-term implications of suppressing/depleting eosinophils and the duration for which they should be administered.

Patients beliefs on intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration of biologics for severe asthma treatment: A cross-sectional observational survey study

Background

Understanding how patients generate preferences for administration route alternatives may improve health-care delivery and clinical outcomes. Recently, novel biological therapies with subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration routes have been approved for severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of our study was to assess the preferred route of biologic therapy administration and related beliefs among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional observational survey study. Patients answered an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire after an outpatient visit in pulmonary disease clinics located throughout Italy. Socio-demographic and clinical information together with the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Work Productivity Impairment Scale and the medical resources utilization module of the Health & Work Survey were collected. Patients beliefs and preference towards SC and IV administration were investigated by means of an ad hoc 13 item questionnaire.

Results: the main findings

150 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the questionnaire (47.3% males). Preference for IV and SC administration was 18.7% and 81.3%, respectively. Compared with patients preferring SC formulation, patients that favored IV were older (p ​= ​0.04), less likely to escalate corticosteroid dose (p ​= ​0.03) and had emergency room (ER) access (p ​= ​0.009) during asthma exacerbations. Patients felt that SC was more convenient than IV, but this belief was not associated with higher likelihood of preferring SC administration. IV formulations were more likely associated with quicker and more effective drug action (p ​= ​0.0001), procedural safety and medical oversight (p ​= ​0.0002) and social support (p ​= ​0.007). Predictors of IV preference were represented by the association of worse asthma control and increased use of ER services, and by beliefs toward formulation effectiveness/efficiency in reducing symptoms (p ​= ​0.04 and p ​< ​0.0001, respectively). The model achieved excellent discrimination of administration route preference (area under the curve ​= ​0.87).

Conclusions

Preference is guided by partially misleading beliefs, which may generate wrong expectations that in turn can affect treatment satisfaction and adherence. Convenience and efficacy beliefs for drugs with different routes of administration always should be discussed with patients to achieve informed shared-decision making.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Endotypes in allergic diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The precision medicine concept is both appealing and challenging. We review here the recent findings in the endotype-driven approach for major allergic diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

Stratified medicine for different allergic diseases can identify patients who are more likely to benefit or experience an adverse reaction in response to a given therapy and anticipate their long-term outcome and vital risk. In addition, this approach potentially facilitates drug development and prevention strategies.

SUMMARY

The endotype-driven approach in allergic diseases has tremendous potential, but there are notable barriers in reaching the new world of precision medicine. Multidimensional endotyping integrating visible properties with multiple biomarkers is recommended for both type 2 and nontype 2 allergic diseases to provide evidence that a certain pathway is the key driver for a given patient. Significant healthcare system changes are required to achieve the expected targets.

Semaphorin 3A Is Effective in Reducing Both Inflammation and Angiogenesis in a Mouse Model of Bronchial Asthma

Semaphorin 3A (sema3A) belongs to the sub-family of the immune semaphorins that function as regulators of immune-mediated inflammation. Sema3A is a membrane associated molecule on T regulatory cells and on B regulatory cells. Being transiently ligated to the cell surface of these cells it is suggested to be a useful marker for evaluating their functional status. In earlier studies, we found that reduced sema3A concentration in the serum of asthma patients as well as reduced expression by Treg cells correlates with asthma disease severity. Stimulation of Treg cells with recombinant sema3A induced a significant increase in FoxP3 and IL-10 expression. To find out if sema3A can be of benefit to asthma patients, we evaluated the effect of sema3A injection in a mouse model of asthma. BALB\c-mice were sensitized using ovalbumin (OVA) + adjuvant for 15 days followed by OVA aerosol inhalation over five consecutive days. Four hours following air ways sensitization on each of the above days- 15 of these mice were injected intraperitoneally with 50 μg per mouse of recombinant human sema3A-FR and the remaining 15 mice were injected with a similarly purified vehicle. Five days later the mice were sacrificed, broncheo-alveolar lavage (BAL) was collected and formalin-fixed lung biopsies taken and analyzed. In sema3A treated mice, only 20% of the bronchioles and arterioles were infiltrated by inflammatory cells as compared to 90% in the control group (p = 0.0079). In addition, eosinophil infiltration was also significantly increased in the control group as compared with the sema3A treated mice. In sema3A treated mice we noticed only a small number of mononuclear and neutrophil cells in the BAL while in the control mice, the BAL was enriched with mononuclear and neutrophil cells. Finally, in the control mice, angiogenesis was significantly increased in comparison with sema3A treated mice as evidenced by the reduced concentration of microvessels in the lungs of sema3A treated mice. To conclude, we find that in this asthma model, sema3A functions as a potent suppressor of asthma related inflammation that has the potential to be further developed as a new therapeutic for the treatment of asthma.

Mepolizumab in the management of severe eosinophilic asthma in adults: current evidence and practical experience

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition involving the airways with varying pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical symptoms and outcomes, generally controlled by conventional therapies including inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂ agonists. However, these therapies are unable to successfully control symptoms in about 5–10% of severe asthma patients. Atopic asthma, characterized by high immunoglobulin (Ig)E or eosinophilia, represents about 50% of asthmatic patients. Interleukin (IL)-5 is the main cytokine responsible of activation of eosinophils, hence therapeutic strategies have been investigated and developed for clinical use. Biologics targeting IL-5 and its receptor (first mepolizumab and subsequently, reslizumab and benralizumab), have been recently approved and used as add-on therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma resulting in a reduction in the circulating eosinophil count, improvement in lung function and exacerbation reduction in asthma patients. Despite these biologics having been approved for stratified severe asthma patients that remain uncontrolled with high doses of conventional therapy, a number of patients may be eligible for more than one biologic. Presently, the lack of head-to-head studies comparing the biological agents among themselves and with conventional therapy make the choice of optimal therapy for each patient a challenge for clinicians. Moreover, discontinuation of these treatments, implications for efficacy or adverse events, in particular in long-term treatment, and needs for useful biomarkers are still matters of debate. In this review we evaluate to date, the evidence on mepolizumab that seems to demonstrate it is a well-tolerated and efficacious regimen for use in severe eosinophilic asthma, though more studies are still required.

A meta-analysis of anti-interleukin-13 monoclonal antibodies for uncontrolled asthma

More and more clinical trials have tried to assess the clinical benefit of anti-interleukin (IL)-13 monoclonal antibodies for uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibodies for uncontrolled asthma. Major databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the anti-IL-13 treatment and a placebo in uncontrolled asthma. Outcomes, including asthma exacerbation rate, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores, rescue medication use, and adverse events were extracted from included studies for systematic review and meta-analysis. Five studies involving 3476 patients and two anti-IL-13 antibodies (lebrikizumab and tralokinumab) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to the placebo, anti-IL-13 treatments were associated with significant improvement in asthma exacerbation, FEV1 and AQLQ scores, and reduction in rescue medication use. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between two groups. Subgroup analysis showed patients with high periostin level had a lower risk of asthma exacerbation after receiving anti-IL-13 treatment. Our study suggests that anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibodies could improve the management of uncontrolled asthma. Periostin may be a good biomarker to detect the specific subgroup who could get better response to anti-IL-13 treatments. In view of blocking IL-13 alone is possibly not enough to achieve asthma control because of the overlapping pathophysiological roles of IL-13/IL-4 in inflammatory pathways, combined blocking of IL-13 and IL-4 with monoclonal antibodies may be more encouraging.

Higher Binding Affinity and in vitro Potency of Reslizumab for Interleukin-5 Compared With Mepolizumab

Reslizumab and mepolizumab are recently approved monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of severe (uncontrolled) eosinophilic asthma. Both are effective in neutralizing the function of interleukin-5 (IL-5). This study is the first to compare the binding affinity and in vitro potency of both antibodies in head-to-head assays. Two assays assessed binding affinity (using the equilibrium dissociation constant [K_D]) of each drug for human IL-5. In the Biacore surface plasmon resonance assay, the association constant (k_on) values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 3.93 × 10⁶ and 1.83 × 10⁵, respectively. The dissociation constant (k_off) values were 4.29 × 10⁻⁴ and 2.14 × 10⁻⁴, respectively. Calculated K_D values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 109 and 1,170 pM, respectively, representing an approximately 11-fold stronger binding affinity with reslizumab. In the Kinetic Exclusion Assay, the k_on values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 3.17 × 10⁶ and 1.32 × 10⁵, respectively. The k_off values were 1.36 × 10⁻⁵ and 1.48 × 10⁻⁵, respectively. Measured K_D values for human IL-5 for reslizumab and mepolizumab were 4.3 and 112 pM, respectively, representing an approximately 26-fold stronger binding affinity for reslizumab. A human-IL-5-dependent cell proliferation assay was developed to assess in vitro potency, based on a human cell line selected for enhanced surface expression of IL-5 receptor-alpha and consistent proliferation response to IL-5. The concentration at which 50% inhibition occurred (IC₅₀) was determined for both antibodies. Reslizumab and mepolizumab inhibited IL-5-dependent cell proliferation, with IC₅₀ values of approximately 91.1 and 286.5 pM, respectively, representing on average 3.1-fold higher potency with reslizumab. In conclusion, comparative assays show that reslizumab has higher affinity binding for and in vitro potency against human IL-5 compared with mepolizumab. However, these results do not take into consideration the different methods of administration of reslizumab and mepolizumab.