Safety and tolerability of omalizumab

Postmarketing Analysis of Eosinophilic Adverse Reactions in the use of Biologic Therapies for Type 2 Inflammatory Conditions

BACKGROUND

Temporary eosinophilia is a potential adverse reaction of monoclonal antibody therapies in the treatment of a variety of type 2 inflammatory conditions, including asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). The pathophysiology, epidemiology, and clinical significance of eosinophilia and eosinophilic adverse reactions following the initiation of biologic therapy are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the postmarketing, eosinophilic adverse reactions with clinical significance in patients treated with the 3 biologic therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for CRSwNP: dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab.

METHODS

The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard was searched for eosinophilic adverse reactions related to dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab treatments from November 2004 to December 2022. Data regarding each of the eosinophilic adverse reactions were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 218, 270, and 134 reports of eosinophilic adverse reactions were reported among patients who were treated with dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab, respectively. The most common eosinophilic adverse reaction was eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (338 patients), followed by eosinophilic respiratory tract reactions (158 patients). The most common indication for biological treatment among the reaction groups was asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Eosinophilic adverse reactions are rare but consequential complications of biological treatment. They are more common among patients treated for asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Measuring and monitoring blood eosinophil levels may be appropriate in specific clinical instances when patients are started on different biologic therapies for type 2 inflammatory conditions.

Critical pathomechanisms of NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) clarified by treatment with omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody

Characteristic symptoms of NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) include asthma, chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, cysteinyl LT (CysLT) overproduction and NSAIDs hypersensitivity. Some N-ERD patients present with episodic treatment-resistant extra-respiratory symptoms (CysLT-associated coronary artery vasospasm, gastroenteritis, or skin rash). Even when using standard treatments for respiratory and extra-respiratory symptoms, including systemic corticosteroids and aspirin desensitization, it is difficult to control the clinical symptoms and severe type 2 inflammation involved with mast cells, eosinophils, ILC2s, and platelet activation. Few treatment options are applicable in a clinical setting. Therefore, identifying effective treatments is essential for managing N-ERD patients who suffer from these conditions. Our previous observational study demonstrated 12-month omalizumab treatment of N-ERD was clinically effective against respiratory symptoms. Despite the remaining eosinophilia, omalizumab significantly reduced urinary LTE4 and PGD2 metabolites to near normal levels at steady state. Based on the preliminary study, we demonstrated that omalizumab induced tolerance to aspirin in N-ERD patients 3 months after therapy initiation and suppressed activation of mast cells during 24 h of initiation in a randomized manner. Moreover, omalizumab had significant efficacy against extra-respiratory symptoms at baseline (lacking aspirin exposure) as well as throughout aspirin challenge. This review addresses the latest discoveries related to N-ERD pathogenesis and the significant effectiveness of omalizumab on N-ERD as a mast cell stabilizer. Our findings regarding omalizumab-associated mast cell inhibitory effects are indirect evidence that mast cell dysregulation and, possibly, IgE are pivotal components of N-ERD.

Relapsing Eosinophilia in a Severe Allergic Asthma Patient on Biological Therapy

Background: Severe asthma often remains uncontrolled despite optimized inhaled treatment. The rise of biologic therapy in severe asthma represented a major advance for the disease management. However, correct phenotyping and monitoring of severe asthma patients is key to the success of targeted biologic therapy. Materials and Methods: We present the case of a 63-year-old female, never a smoker, diagnosed with asthma at the age of 45 and associated persistent mild rhinitis, without other notable comorbidities. She was prescribed medium-dose ICS/LABA, administered inconstantly in the first years after the diagnosis, with poor overall control of the disease. After several exacerbation episodes, treatment compliance improved, but the control of the disease remained poor despite adding an antileukotriene. In January 2019, she presented an exacerbation episode requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids (OCS) and she was afterwards put on high-dose ICS/LABA and continued the antileukotriene. She was referred for a skin allergy test, which revealed mild sensitization to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and farinae, with a total IgE level of 48.3 IU/mL. The blood eosinophil level was 270 cells/mm3. The lung function was variable, going from mild impairment to severe fixed obstruction during exacerbations. Despite optimized inhaled treatment, good adherence and inhaler technique, and allergen avoidance strategies, asthma control was not achieved, and she continued to experience severe episodes of exacerbation requiring OCS. Results: In October 2019, she was initiated on biologic therapy with omalizumab, which allowed asthma control to be achieved and maintained for 18 months, with preserved lung function, good symptom control, no exacerbations and slightly elevated blood eosinophil level (340-360 cells/mm3). In April 2021, she started experiencing exacerbation episodes requiring OCS (three episodes within 6 months), with a progressive increase in blood eosinophil level (up to 710 cells/mm3), and progressive deterioration of asthma control and lung function, despite continuation of previous therapy. A specific IgE test against Aspergillus was negative, and total IgE level was 122.4 IU/mL. In December 2021, the patient was switched from omalizumab to benralizumab. Asthma control was again achieved, lung function improved significantly and the patient did not experience any other exacerbation episodes up until today, which allowed for a reduction in ICS dose. Intriguingly, a relapsing eosinophilia was also noted under anti-IL5-R treatment prior to the dose administration, but with preserved asthma control. Conclusions: This case underscores the pivotal role of meticulous phenotyping in severe asthma management on one side, and careful monitoring of patient evolution and possible side effects of treatment on the other side. By showcasing how diverse inflammatory pathways can coexist within a single patient and impact treatment outcomes, it highlights the necessity of tailored biologic therapy for sustained control.

Comparative efficacy and safety of the treatment by Omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria in the general population: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is the only licensed drug that serves as a third-line treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The optimum doses of omalizumab remain controversial. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four databases were searched from the database's creation to April 8, 2023. Several keywords such as omalizumab and urticarias were used to retrieve related studies. The meta-analytical outcomes were analyzed in R 4.2.1 software and Stata 15.1 software. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool Ver. 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

In total, 2331 patients were included. Five indexes were employed to assess, including weekly Itch Severity Score (ISS7), weekly Hive Severity Score (HSS7), weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse events (AE). A 300 mg dose of omalizumab was the optimum dose to treat CIU, followed by the 150 mg dose. Furthermore, 600 mg of omalizumab only showed a significant difference from the placebo in HSS7. No significant statistical difference was observed in AE. Meta-regression analysis revealed that time, as a covariate, was statistically significant in the comparison of omalizumab 150 mg with placebo.

CONCLUSION

300 mg of omalizumab was the optimum dosage to treat CIU patients, with a 150 mg dose also exhibiting good efficacy. Further studies are required to explore the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.

An overview of multiple myeloma: A monoclonal plasma cell malignancy's diagnosis, management, and treatment modalities

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell cancer with high mortality and morbidity rates. Its incidence rate has increased by 143% since 1975. Adipokines, cytokines, chemokines, and genetic variations influence the development and progression of MM. Chromosomal translocations cause mutations associated with MM. The pathogenesis of MM is complicated by novel issues like miRNAs, RANKL, Wnt/DKK1, Wnt, and OPG. Conventional diagnosis methods include bone marrow biopsy, sPEP or uPEP, sIFE and uIFE, and sFLC assay, along with advanced techniques such as FISH, SNPA, and gene expression technologies. A novel therapeutic strategy has been developed recently. Chemotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and a variety of drug classes in combination are used to treat patients with high-risk diseases. Alkylating agents, PIs, and IMiDs have all been developed as effective treatment options for MM in recent years. This review overviews the current recommendations for managing MGUS, SMM, MM, SP and NSMM and discusses practices in diagnosing and treating MM.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Early Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Biologics in Pediatric Allergic Diseases: Preliminary Results from a Prospective Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing interest in biologics for the management of allergic diseases, sparse real-world data are still available in the pediatric population. This study aimed to evaluate the early real-life efficacy and safety of omalizumab for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and Dupilumab for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODS

A prospective study enrolling children aged 6-18 years was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs at 16 weeks of treatment (T1). The effectiveness was measured using validated questionnaires (ACQ-5 for asthma, UAS7 for CSU, and EASI score for AD). Secondary outcome measures included reductions in inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosages, asthma-related hospitalizations/exacerbations, and quality of life (QoL) indicators (iNRS, sNRS, DLQI/cDLQI) for CSU and AD. Safety was expressed according to the descriptions of adverse events provided by EMA and FDA.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of eighteen children (mean age 12.9 ± 3.4 years). The omalizumab treatment significantly reduced ACQ-5 and UAS7 scores (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). In patients with asthma, decreased ICS dosage and hospitalization/exacerbation rates were observed. QoL parameters significantly improved in CSU and AD patients. No severe adverse events were reported for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings validate omalizumab and dupilumab as effective and safe therapeutic options for managing moderate-to-severe allergic diseases in children and adolescents.

Residue-resolved insights into the stabilization of therapeutic proteins by excipients: A case study of two monoclonal antibodies with arginine and glutamate

Protein formulation development relies on the selection of excipients that inhibit protein-protein interactions preventing aggregation. Empirical strategies involve screening many excipient and buffer combinations by physicochemical characterization using forced degradation or temperature-induced stress, mostly under accelerated conditions. Such methods do not readily provide information on the inter- and intramolecular interactions responsible for the effects of excipients. Here, we describe a combined experimental and computational approach for investigating the effect of protein-excipient interactions on formulation stability, which allows the identification of preferential interaction sites and thus can aid in the selection of excipients to be experimentally screened. Model systems composed of two marketed therapeutic IgG1 monoclonal antibodies with identical Fc domain sequences, trastuzumab and omalizumab, were investigated with commonly used excipients arginine, glutamate, and equimolar arginine/glutamate mixtures. Protein-excipient interactions were studied using all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, which show accumulation of the excipients at specific antibody regions. Preferential excipient-interaction sites were particularly found for charged and aromatic residues and in the complementary-determining regions, with more pronounced arginine contacts for omalizumab than trastuzumab. These computational findings are in line with the more pronounced stabilizing effects of arginine observed in the long-term storage stability study. Furthermore, the aggregation and solubility propensity predicted by commonly used in silico tools do not align with the preferential excipient-interaction sites identified by the MD simulations, suggesting that different physicochemical mechanisms are at play.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of drug therapy for chronic urticaria: a network meta-analysis and risk-benefit assessment

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent chronic skin condition characterized by recurrent wheals. Clinical guidelines recommend multiple drugs for CU treatment. Our study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of drug therapy for CU.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWSs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the response rate, decline in Urticaria Activity Score over 7 Days (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse event rates of standard-dose and high-dose H1 antihistamine (H1AH), omalizumab (OMA) 75, 150, and 300 mg, cyclosporine and placebo. The risk-benefit assessment was conducted by probabilistic simulation and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA).

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies were identified, including 37 RCTs and 2 RWSs. OMA 300 mg and 150 mg both had significantly higher response rate than standard-dose H1AH (p < 0.05, respectively). OMA 300 mg and 150 mg both consistently led to a huge drop in UAS7 and DLQI compared to standard-dose H1AH and high-dose H1AH (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Regarding risk-benefit assessment, OMA 300 mg emerges as the optimal pharmacological intervention for CU, while OMA 150 mg stands as a secondary alternative compared to H1 antihistamines and cyclosporine.

Safety of biologics in severe asthmatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines have recommended continuing treatment with biologics during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, a continuation of treatment with biologics in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been little investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of biologics in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

A pilot, monocentric, prospective study. Patients aged 6 years old and older with severe asthma on treatment with biologics and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. Patients were followed-up with periodic calls at different time points up to 3 months to detect any adverse effect and its relationship with biologic treatment according to the Naranjo Adverse Probability Scale (NAPS). The severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and clinical outcome were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, we included 21 patients (10 on therapy with omalizumab, 9 with dupilumab, and 2 with mepolizumab). Only a patient-reported two local adverse events. No other adverse event was reported. Twenty out of 21 patients had a mild COVID-19 course, and no adverse outcome was observed.

CONCLUSION

We showed that the scheduled dose of the biologic therapy can be administered safely on time in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as the treatment did not result in adverse events or outcomes.

Research progress of omalizumab in the treatment of bullous pemphigoid

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering disease associated with anti-BP180 and anti-BP230 antibodies. The pathogenic action mechanism of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies in BP has been studied since the 1970s, and IgE antibodies have gradually been confirmed as being important in BP; therefore, anti-IgE therapy may be a new option for the treatment of BP. Omalizumab, as an IgE monoclonal antibody, has been increasingly used clinically to treat BP in recent years. Here, we collected 35 papers investigating omalizumab for BP treatment in a total of 83 patients, and the vast majority of patients showed varying degrees of improvement after treatment, except for a small number of patients with poor clinical outcomes. The patients were then divided into three groups according to dosing frequency and number of doses. Statistical analysis indicated that dosing frequency had little effect on clinical efficacy. While the groups with different numbers of doses were evaluated, the results concluded that clinical efficacy was affected by the number of doses, but there was no positive correlation between the number of doses and clinical efficacy.

Biologic drugs in treating allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in patients with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Aspergillus fumigatus is a common saprophytic fungus causing allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The recommended first-line treatment for ABPA is oral steroids, followed by antifungal therapy. However, both treatments are not free from adverse effects; thus, efforts are being made to identify new drugs showing the same effectiveness but with fewer or no side-effects. Therein, biologic drugs have been significantly implemented in clinical practice in treating ABPA in patients with CF.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the available literature, providing evidence for the administration of biologic drugs as a new potential treatment of ABPA in both the paediatric and adult populations with CF.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between January 2007 and July 2021 was performed, using a protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42021270932).

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies focusing on the use of biologics in treating ABPA in CF patients was included. We highlighted a paucity of data providing evidence for biologic drug use in ABPA.

CONCLUSION

Scientific evidence is insufficient to support firm conclusions and randomised clinical trials are urgently required to investigate the efficacy and safety of biologics for ABPA in CF patients.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema: part I - systemic therapy

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for paediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

Severe non-atopic asthma: omalizumab can reduce severe asthma exacerbations

Introduction: Humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) has demonstrated efficacy in severe atopic asthma. However, few studies have assessed its efficacy in non-atopic and even less in T2-low severe asthma. The objective was to determinate the omalizumab response according to atopic status.Methods: This retrospective, real-world study was performed in the Chest Diseases Department of Strasbourg University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2017. The response to omalizumab was assessed in 139 patients 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment and compared to data collected prior to omalizumab initiation.Results: Forty-four patients (31.7%) had severe non-atopic asthma and 95 (68.3%) had a severe atopic asthma. In the non-atopic group, omalizumab significantly reduced the severe exacerbation rate by 44% (95% CI 18-64%, p < 0.05), 43% (CI 95% 20-60%, p < 0.05), and 54% (CI 95% 36-67%, p < 0.05), at 4, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A trend toward improvement in FEV1, asthma control and oral corticosteroid use was also observed. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in atopic asthmatics except a more effective oral corticosteroid sparing in atopic group (p < 0.05). Similar reduction of severe exacerbation rates were observed in T2-low asthma subgroup (non-atopic, non-eosinophilic).Conclusion: Omalizumab was effective in severe asthma, regardless of atopic status.

Biologics in severe asthma: Outcomes in clinical trials-Similarities and differences

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is a heterogenous disease characterized by multiple phenotypes. Targeted biologic therapies have revolutionarily changed the management of severe asthma by affecting various clinical outcomes, mainly by reducing exacerbations and the use of maintenance corticosteroids, but also by improving lung function and patient quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of different biologics in improving the above outcomes. However, no head-to-head studies exist to compare their efficacy and many patients with severe asthma are eligible for more than one biologic agent. In this review, we present the effect of various biologics in the various outcomes as shown in randomized controlled trials and discuss their similarities and differences.

EXPERT OPINION

Both the initial choice of a biologic as well as the option of switching to another give the clinician an interesting but also difficult decision when choosing a biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma. This decision is mainly based on the individual characteristics of the patient, especially rate of exacerbations and use of systemic corticosteroids, but is also influenced by the presence of comorbidities and lung function impairment. No safety concerns have been raised around the use of these biologics.

Immunogenicity of Monoclonal Antibodies and the Potential Use of HLA Haplotypes to Predict Vulnerable Patients

The use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the clinic has successfully expanded to treatment of cancer, viral infections, inflammations, and other indications. However, some of the classes of mAbs that are used in the clinic show the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) leading to loss of efficacy. This review describes ADA formation for the various mAbs, and its clinical effect. Lastly, this review considers the use of HLA-haplotypes as biomarkers to predict vulnerability of patients sensitive to formation of ADAs.

Multicentric and Observational Study of Omalizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Real-Life in Colombia

Background

Although chronic urticaria (CU) is a common, cause of medical consulting both in general practitioners and allergist specialists worldwide, there is little information about its behavior and management in Latin America. Currently, national and international guidelines recommend using Omalizumab for cases refractory to management with antihistamines. Despite advances in the knowledge of Omalizumab for the management of CU, although there are few studies in underdeveloped countries, there are many studies evaluating the impact of Omalizumab treatment. There is not clinical information related with CSU-Omalizumab in patient settled in the Caribbean area. This research aims to evaluate the management of CU with Omalizumab in a real-life scenario in Colombia.

Methodology

We conducted an observational, descriptive, and retrospective study with patient recruitment between 2014 and 2017 of individuals diagnosed with Chronic Urticaria (CU) treating allergology specialists in five Colombian cities. We included patients with CU who failed to achieve disease control after treatment for 4 weeks with fourfold doses of second-generation H1-antihistamines, as recommended by the EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guidelines and who received treatment with Omalizumab.

Results

We included 123 patients, 73.1% (n = 90) were women. The mean age was 47.1 years (Standard Deviation, SD: 16.2). The median of the total months of disease evolution was 30 (IQR = 13–58). 81.3 % (n = 100) of patients were diagnosed with chronic spontaneous urticarial (CSU). 4.8% (n = 6) had inducible CU (CIndU), and 13.8% (n = 17) reported mixed urticaria (spontaneous CU with at least one inducible component). Regarding emotional factors, 34.9% (n = 43) of subjects indicated anxiety symptoms, 34.1% (n = 42) had exacerbations associated with stress, and 14.6% (n = 18) manifested episodes of sadness. The percentage of patients with CSU controlled according to medical criteria at 3 months with Omalizumab were 80% (n = 80/100) and at 6 months 87% (n = 87/100). The frequency of adverse events was 29.2% (n = 36), with headache being the most frequent adverse event.

Conclusions

This real-life study with Omalizumab at CU describes percentages of effectiveness and safety similar to those observed in pivotal and real-life studies conducted in other regions around the world.

Omalizumab for the Treatment of Bullous Pemphigoid: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disease. Current treatment strategies are limited by their efficacy and/or side effect profile and the need for safer and effective alternatives is undeniable. We aimed to conduct a systematic review focusing on the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in BP patients. Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for English and French articles published from inception to July 1, 2021, using search terms "omalizumab" OR "Xolair" OR "IGE025" OR "olizumab" AND "bullous pemphigoid." Screening and data extraction was performed by two raters independently. The primary outcome was complete response (CR), and secondary outcomes were partial response (PR), flare-ups, adverse events/vital status. In total, 22 articles were included, with a total of 56 patients. All patients had a refractory BP with mean disease duration of 13.5 ± 20.2 months (Standard Deviation (SD)) and failed 3.1 ± 1.6 therapies and many remained corticosteroids dependent. Overall, 87.5% of patients responded to treatment (55.4% CR and 32.1% PR), 7.1% discontinued the protocol and only 5.4% were non responders. A third of patients were able to discontinue all other therapies and most others were able to discontinue or taper systemic corticosteroids to <10 mg daily. Flare-ups occurred in 57.7% of patients upon discontinuation of omalizumab and/or steroid tapering, most patients recaptured response thereafter. Omalizumab was well tolerated by most patients. Omalizumab appears to be a promising treatment for BP with a good response rate and safety profile. However, several limitations were identified in current literature, and highlight the need for randomized controlled trials of omalizumab in BP.

A rational approach to compare and select biologic therapeutics in asthma

OBJECTIVE

To review key literature on asthma biologic therapeutics-currently available and under investigation-to inform a rational approach to select biologics for the management of people with severe asthma by precision medicine.

DATA SOURCES

We used the PubMed database to review literature on biologic therapeutics in asthma.

STUDY SELECTIONS

We included published randomized control trials and real-world studies on biologic therapeutics, available in English, through September 2021.

RESULTS

Increased understanding of asthma endotypes and the roles of various inflammatory mechanisms has led to therapeutic agents that inhibit specific cytokines or immune pathways. Currently available biologic therapeutics target type 2-high asthma. Grouped by mechanisms of action, there are the following 3 types: (1) anti-immunoglobulin E, (2) anti-interleukin (IL)-5 or IL-5 receptor, and (3) anti-IL-4 receptor α. There are also various potential future biologic therapeutics currently under investigation. Although there remains a paucity of data regarding prospective direct head-to-head comparisons of biologic therapeutics in asthma, there are some retrospective and indirect comparison data available.

CONCLUSION

Precision medicine guides selection of biologic therapeutics along with shared decision-making. Biomarkers, although not comprehensive, allow approximations of likely mechanisms. Use of biomarkers, to include historical levels and trends, in addition to consideration of key clinical characteristics and comorbidities can greatly help guide biologic selection. Efficacy, safety, potential adverse effects, indications for other key comorbidities, and logistics should also be considered.

Pediatric usage of Omalizumab: A promising one

Allergic and related diseases have a substantial epidemiological impact on the pediatric population. Small molecule-based medicines have been traditionally used to manage the diseases. Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody-based medicine used in children's allergy and shows great promises. It binds to free IgE and prevents it from binding to IgE receptors, thus interrupting the IgE-dependent allergic inflammatory cascade. Vast amounts of data demonstrate its effectiveness and well tolerance by patients, including the children. However, the drug was only approved to use in allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), though other applications were explored in clinical trials. In this review, we summarized current pediatric applications of omalizumab in allergic diseases, focusing on its usages beyond asthma and CSU, including allergic rhinitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, food allergy and atopic dermatitis. In addition, we highlighted the unmet needs and controversial issues of anti-IgE therapy.

Biologics for Asthma and Allergic Skin Diseases in Children

An estimated 7 million children in the United States have asthma, which causes a significant health care burden and affects quality of life. The minority of these children have asthma that does not respond to Global Initiative for Asthma steps 4 and 5 care, and biological medications are recommended at this level in the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. In addition, biologics have been introduced into the care of children with allergic skin diseases. Omalizumab and mepolizumab are approved for children as young as 6 years, and benralizumab and dupilumab are approved for people aged ≥12 years. Reslizumab is approved only for people aged ≥18 years. These monoclonal antibodies may be added for appropriate patients when asthma or allergic skin diseases are not well controlled. Pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists should work together and be aware of the benefits and risks of these medications for their patients, as well as the practical implications of providing these options for their patients. This clinical report serves as an evaluation of the current literature on these types of medications in the treatment of children with asthma and allergic skin disease.

New Treatments for Asthma

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous chronic airway disease with high prevalence of uncontrolled disease. New therapies, including biologics, are now available to treat T2 high asthma. Treatment of T2 low asthma remains a challenge. Asthma guidelines need be to updated to incorporate new therapeutics.

The role of omalizumab in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitits with nasal polyposis

Introduction: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) poses a significant healthcare challenge, with diminished quality of life for patients and high costs and resource utilization for disease management. The understanding of CRSwNP pathophysiology has progressed with identification of various inflammatory biomarkers and subsequent development of monoclonal antibodies that target the underlying mechanisms of inflammation.Areas covered: Omalizumab is a biologic agent for CRSwNP treatment that targets immunoglobulin (Ig)-E. The US FDA has approved the use of omalizumab as an add-on biologic therapy for nasal polyposis in December 2020. Two Phase III clinical trials, POLYP 1 and POLYP 2, have shown that omalizumab improves both subjective patient-reported outcomes and objective physician-evaluated metrics for CRSwNP. Ongoing studies are still exploring the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of biologics for CRSwNP.Expert opinion: Biologics will continue develop as a viable management option for CRSwNP. Omalizumab is regarded as a promising addition to current treatment strategies for refractory disease.

Response to Omalizumab in Black and White Patients with Allergic Asthma

BACKGROUND

Higher asthma burden is more likely to be experienced by Black than White patients. In clinical research, underrepresentation of minority populations is observed.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate response to omalizumab in Black and White patients in North America with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

Data from placebo-controlled (EXTRA) and single-armed (PROSPERO) omalizumab studies were used for this post hoc analysis. We used a Poisson regression model to examine exacerbation rates. An analysis of covariance model was used to estimate placebo-corrected change in FEV₁ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) by racial group.

RESULTS

This analysis included 631 White and 176 Black patients from EXTRA and 567 White and 130 Black patients from PROSPERO. In EXTRA, placebo-corrected exacerbation rate reductions (relative rate change [95% confidence interval], 22.6% [2.0-38.9%] vs 22.0% [-18.0% to 48.4%]) and FEV₁ improvements were similar for White and Black patients. There was a trend toward greater AQLQ improvements for Black versus White patients (least squares mean treatment differences: 0.0 vs 0.3, 0.6 vs 0.4, and 0.6 vs 0.2 at weeks 16, 32, and 48, respectively) throughout the study. In PROSPERO, on-study exacerbation rates (0.76 [0.65-0.88] vs 0.77 [0.56-1.10]) and AQLQ improvements (least squares mean change from baseline: 1.2 vs 1.2 and 1.3 vs 1.2 at month 6 and end of study, respectively) were similar for White versus Black patients. A trend toward greater FEV₁ improvement was observed in White versus Black patients throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of EXTRA and PROSPERO suggests that Black and White patients with moderate to severe asthma experience similar improvements in exacerbations, FEV₁, and AQLQ with omalizumab.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma: A real-life study

Background: The efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma have been established in both randomized controlled trials and real-life studies. Objective: To evaluate the sustained effectiveness and safety of long-term treatment with omalizumab in a real-world setting. Methods: In this retrospective study, we included patients treated with omalizumab for at least 8 years in four asthma clinics in Greece. Pulmonary function, asthma control, oral corticosteroids (OCS) dose, and exacerbations were recorded before treatment, 6 months later, and annually thereafter. Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Forty-five patients (66.7% women), mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 55.3 ± 12.2 years, were included. The duration of treatment with omalizumab was 10.6 ± 1.2 years. The annual exacerbation rate decreased from 4.1 before omalizumab initiation to 1.1 after 1 year of treatment and remained low up to the 8th year of treatment (p < 0.001). From the 19 patients who were receiving OCS at baseline, 21.1% patients discontinued after 6 months, 47.4% were still on OCS after 4 years of therapy, and 31.6% were on OCS after 8 years. With regard to the OCS dose, 36.8% of the patients reduced the dose ≥ 50% after 6 months and 68.4% achieved 50% reduction after 2 years. The mean daily OCS dose before omalizumab initiation was 7.8 mg of prednisolone or the equivalent, reduced to 4.7 mg/day after 6 months, which reached 1.6 mg/day after 8 years (p < 0.001). Treatment with omalizumab resulted in significant improvements of asthma control and lung function. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In this real-life study, omalizumab resulted in significant and sustained improvements in asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and lung function, and had a steroid sparing effect and a good safety profile.

Effect of omalizumab treatment on peripheral nerves in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria

Aim: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by itchy, red and raised lesions that appear as an attack without any cause and last for six weeks or longer. Omalizumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the Ce3 moiety of circulating IgE and is indicated for the treatment of resistant CSU. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether there was peripheral nervous system involvement in patients with chronic urticaria receiving omalizumab treatment.Methods: Forty-seven patients who were treated with omalizumab for CSU were included in the study. Electrophysiological measurements were performed following a neurological examination before treatment and at three months after omalizumab treatment. In nerve conduction tests, eight different nerves were studied in four extremities (total 16 nerves). During these studies, two motor and two sensory nerves (median and ulnar) in the upper extremities, and two motor (tibial and common peroneal) and two sensory nerves (sural and superficial peroneal) in the lower extremities were analysed.Results: No pathological electrophysiological findings supporting neuropathy were detected in any of the measurements performed before and after treatment. When the nerve conduction velocity, amplitude and latency values ​​of all examined nerves were compared, no significant difference was found between the pre- and post-treatment values.Conclusions: It can be considered that omalizumab has no effect on peripheral nerves, and it is a safe and well tolerated agent in terms of both peripheral nerves and neurological structure.

Biologicals in atopic disease in pregnancy: An EAACI position paper

Biologicals have transformed the management of severe disease phenotypes in asthma, atopic dermatitis, and chronic spontaneous urticaria. As a result, the number of approved biologicals for the treatment of atopic diseases is continuously increasing. Although atopic diseases are among the most common diseases in the reproductive age, investigations, and information on half-life, pharmacokinetics defining the neonatal Fc receptors (FcRn) and most important safety of biologicals in pregnancy are lacking. Given the complex sequence of immunological events that regulate conception, fetal development, and the intrauterine and postnatal maturation of the immune system, this information is of utmost importance. We conducted a systematic review on biologicals in pregnancy for indications of atopic diseases. Evidence in this field is scarce and mainly reserved to reports on the usage of omalizumab. This lack of evidence demands the establishment of a multidisciplinary approach for the management of pregnant women who receive biologicals and multicenter registries for long-term follow-up, drug trial designs suitable for women in the reproductive age, and better experimental models that represent the human situation. Due to the very long half-life of biologicals, preconception counseling and healthcare provider education are crucial to offer the best care for mother and fetus. This position paper integrates available data on safety of biologicals during pregnancy in atopic diseases via a systematic review with a detailed review on immunological considerations how inhibition of different pathways may impact pregnancy.

The Relationship of Asthma Biologics to Remission for Asthma

Asthma treatments have evolved from bronchodilators to interventions directed toward the regulation of airway inflammation. From these advances has come greater disease control and reduced morbidity. The addition of biologics directed toward specific pathways of inflammation has advanced the efficacy of asthma control. With these treatment advances, a renewed interest in achieving a remission in asthma has arisen. Although asthma remission has been considered to reflect a "cure," new evaluations of this concept have proposed criteria for remission while on treatment. These criteria reflect a high level of disease control including absence of symptoms, optimization and stabilization of lung function, and absence of the use of systemic corticosteroids and have been proposed to indicate a remission of disease activity. Given the added efficacy found with biologics in asthma treatment for patients with moderate to severe disease, the question has arisen as to whether the use of biologics meets criteria for remission and may this change a component of underlying disease and risks. Biologics are highly effective in reducing exacerbations, diminishing symptoms, and improving lung function in well-defined asthma populations. At present, however, biologics achieve some, but in most cases not all criteria for a remission on treatment. However, the concept of promoting treatment efforts to achieve disease remission in asthma is important, potentially achievable, and merits consideration for future guideline-directed care approaches.

Biologics for Severe Asthma: Treatment-Specific Effects Are Important in Choosing a Specific Agent

Patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma have greater morbidity, greater use of health care resources, and more impairment in health-related quality of life when compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Fortunately, since the introduction of biological therapeutics, patients with severe eosinophilic asthma now have beneficial treatment options that they did not have just a few years ago. In addition to anti-IgE therapy for allergic asthma, 3 new biological therapeutics targeting IL-5 and 1 targeting IL-4 and IL-13 signaling have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, and approval of more biological therapeutics is on the horizon. These medications decrease the frequency of asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid usage, and improve health-related quality of life. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, specific indications, benefits, and side effects of each of the approved biological therapies for asthma. Furthermore, this article reviews how a clinician could use specific patient characteristics to decide which biologic treatment may be optimal for a given patient.

Self-Reported Improvement for Chronic Rhinosinusitis Major Symptoms in Patients Treated with Omalizumab

Objective: To evaluate the clinical effect of omalizumab therapy on the symptoms of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated CRS major symptom improvement in patients with CRS on omalizumab therapy and patients who met omalizumab therapy indications, but could not access coverage for omalizumab. Changes in overall chronic rhinosinusitis symptom burden and each of the major symptoms of CRS were rated on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the symptom improvement between groups. Results: Omalizumab therapy provided a mean overall symptom improvement of 69.5% (individual symptom improvement: facial pain 78.5%, nasal obstruction 69.8%, rhinorrhea 56.2%, and olfaction 55.8%). For the control group, mean overall symptom improvement since omalizumab screening was 16.8% (individual symptom improvement: rhinorrhea 16.4%, nasal obstruction 15.3%, no improvement in facial pain or olfaction). Overall, and for each major symptom, improvement was significantly greater for omalizumab treated patients (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Omalizumab treatment provided significant improvement in every major clinical symptom of CRS in the treated cohort of patients with recalcitrant CRS, in comparison to the control cohort. A well-designed randomized clinical trial is needed to further assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab treatment for CRS.

Biological treatments for severe asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma is a heterogenous disease associated with different phenotypes and endotypes. The unmet needs with severe asthma have led to the emergence of potential therapeutic targets beyond the existing therapies. Recently, several biologics were examined and some have now been approved to target T2 airway inflammation in patients with severe disease. We provide an overview of recently approved biologic, those which are emerging and highlight unmet needs in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple biologics targeting T2 high asthma are now available for clinical use in the appropriate groups of severe asthma. These target overlapping phenotypes, which include allergic and eosinophilic asthma. Available biologics were shown to improve outcomes that include the reduction of exacerbations and improvement of lung function. Some have also demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Some of these biologics have also demonstrated beneficial effects on associated asthma comorbidities. Biomarkers help predict response to certain biologics, although only few currently exist. Emerging biologics blocking other pathways of airway inflammation are under development. Several small molecule antagonists and inhibitors are also in development. Biologics and therapies targeting T2 low or non-T2 asthma are needed.

SUMMARY

Recently approved biologic therapies improve asthma outcomes in subset of patients. Future research to uncover better predictors of response can improve the precise approach to therapy of patients with severe disease.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Monoclonal Antibodies in Children

Biologic drugs are widely used in pediatric medicine. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in particular are a therapeutic option for rheumatic, autoinflammatory and oncologic diseases. Adverse drug reactions and hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to mAbs may occur in children. Clinical presentation of HSRs to mAbs can be classified according to phenotypes in infusion-related reactions, cytokine release syndrome, both alpha type reactions and type I (IgE/non-IgE), type III, and type IV reactions, all beta-type reactions. The aim of this review is to focus on HSRs associated with the most frequent mAbs in childhood, with particular attention to beta-type reactions. When a reaction to mAbs is suspected a diagnostic work-up including in-vivo and in-vitro testing should be performed. A drug provocation test is recommended only when no alternative drugs are available. In selected patients with immediate IgE-mediated drug allergy a desensitization protocol is indicated. Despite the heavy use of mAbs in childhood, studies evaluating the reliability of diagnostic test are lacking. Although desensitization may be effective in reducing the risk of reactions in children, standardized pediatric protocols are still not available.

Add-On Omalizumab for Inadequately Controlled Severe Pollinosis Despite Standard-of-Care: A Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Cedar pollinosis (CP), a common form of seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR), is a substantial medical problem in Japan due to its high prevalence and severe symptoms. Omalizumab (anti-IgE therapy) has previously proven to be effective in CP/AR, but no studies for inadequately controlled severe CP/AR despite standard-of-care (SoC) have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of omalizumab added to SoC in patients with inadequately controlled severe CP in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study.

METHODS

Adult/adolescent patients with severe CP whose symptoms were inadequately controlled despite nasal corticosteroids plus 1 or more oral medications in the previous 2 seasons were randomized to receive omalizumab (n = 162) or placebo (n = 175). All patients received concomitant antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as SoC. The primary endpoint was the mean nasal symptom score during the severe symptom period. Secondary endpoints included mean ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and safety.

RESULTS

The SoC + omalizumab treatment had statistically significantly and clinically important lower nasal (least squares mean difference, -1.03, P < .001) and ocular (-0.87, P < .001) symptom scores compared with SoC + placebo, respectively. Differences in scores for individual components of nasal and ocular symptoms were also statistically and clinically significant. SoC + omalizumab also improved QoL scores as overall and in all domains. No unexpected safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe CP, omalizumab added to SoC demonstrated consistent efficacy in improving symptoms and QoL, and was well tolerated. These results indicate that omalizumab could be a promising therapeutic option for severe CP/AR.

Adrenal insufficiency is a contraindication for omalizumab therapy in mast cell activation disease: risk for serum sickness

Omalizumab is an effective therapeutic humanized murine IgE antibody in many cases of primary systemic mast cell activation disease (MCAD). The present study should enable the clinician to recognize when treatment of MCAD with omalizumab is contraindicated because of the potential risk of severe serum sickness and to report our successful therapeutic strategy for such adverse event (AE). Our clinical observations, a review of the literature including the event reports in the FDA AE Reporting System, the European Medicines Agency Eudra-Vigilance databases (preferred search terms: omalizumab, Xolair®, and serum sickness) and information from the manufacturer’s Novartis database were used. Omalizumab therapy may be more likely to cause serum sickness than previously thought. In patients with regular adrenal function, serum sickness can occur after 3 to 10 days which resolves after the antigen and circulating immune complexes are cleared. If the symptoms do not resolve within a week, injection of 20 to 40 mg of prednisolone on two consecutive days could be given. However, in MCAD patients whose adrenal cortical function is completely suppressed by exogenous glucocorticoid therapy, there is a high risk that serum sickness will be masked by the MCAD and evolve in a severe form with pronounced damage of organs and tissues, potentially leading to death. Therefore, before the application of the first omalizumab dose, it is important to ensure that the function of the adrenal cortex is not significantly limited so that any occurring type III allergy can be self-limiting.

Infectious Implications of Interleukin-1, Interleukin-6, and T Helper Type 2 Inhibition

Targeting interleukins that drive innate inflammation has expanded treatments of autoinflammatory and autoimmune disorders. Interleukin (IL)-1 inhibition has proven useful for monogenic autoinflammatory syndromes, and IL-6 inhibition for autoimmune arthritides. Biological therapies impeding these pathways impair detection and containment of pathogens, particularly invasive bacteria, reflecting the importance of IL-1 and IL-6 in communicating danger throughout the immune system. Biologics targeting T helper type 2 inflammation are used to treat specific allergic, atopic, and eosinophilic diseases. They may impair protections against local herpesvirus reactivations while augmenting antiviral responses to respiratory viruses. Their risks with helminth exposures have yet to be defined.

Biologics or immunotherapeutics for asthma?

Asthma is now recognised as a heterogenous inflammatory disease of the lung based on cellular infiltrates and transcriptional profiles of blood and airway cells. Four distinct subgroups have been defined, eosinophilic (T2), neutrophilic (T1), mixed eosinophilic/neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic. Patients can also be stratified at a molecular level into T2-high, T2-low and/or T1 based on their gene signatures. Current treatments for asthma have been centred on administration of steroids and/or bronchodilators for the relief of bronchoconstriction and inflammation. These treatments are not always effective and often have limited efficacy during exacerbations. Eosinophil expansion and homing to tissues, bronchoconstriction, IgE production and mucus hypersecretion (hallmark features of asthma) are regulated by the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, the latter of which can induce the expression of the eosinophil chemotactic factors CCL11 and CCL24. A number of new generation biologics (monoclonal antibodies) targeting pathways regulated by the T2 cytokines IL-5 and IL-4/13 (IL-4 receptor alpha) have yielded effective therapies for eosinophil induced exacerbations of severe asthma. Despite these advances, difficulties still remain in treating all exacerbations, and this may reflect the contribution of other inflammatory cells such as neutrophils to pathogenesis. This review describes the effectiveness of targeting T2 pathways, emerging approaches and identifies the potential next steps for therapeutic intervention.

Effectiveness of omalizumab on patient reported outcomes, lung function, and inflammatory markers in severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab arose as a therapeutic option in patients suffering from moderate to severe refractory allergic asthma. It acts as a humanized monoclonal antibody neutralizing circulating IgE antibodies. Randomized clinical trials and real life clinical studies have already confirmed benefits, cost-effectiveness and applicability of the medication.

METHOD

Our study retrospectively reports on the clinical outcomes and airway inflammation in 157 severe allergic asthmatics who were initiated with omalizumab between 2007 and 2019.

RESULTS

After 4 months of therapy, 76% of the patients were judged to have benefited from omalizumab and were admitted to prolonged treatment. During follow-up, we observed an improvement in asthma control, quality of life and spirometric performance. There was also a sustained reduction in exacerbation rate over the years. As for T2 biomarkers, FeNO significantly decreased and, in a subgroup of patients who had repeated sputum inductions, there was also significant reduction in sputum eosinophils but no change in blood eosinophil count. Lastly, we found a correlation between high FeNO levels at baseline and reduction in ACQ scores at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that omalizumab shows effectiveness in severe allergic asthma in a real life setting, by reducing exacerbation rate, improving patient perspective outcomes and airway calibre, together with reducing type-2 airway inflammation.

New biological treatments for asthma and skin allergies

Allergies are typically endemic, complex and heterogeneous diseases with a high impact at quality of life. Mechanistically, type 2 immune responses involving eosinophil and basophil granulocytes, mast cells and humoral factors such as IgE are key drivers of allergic diseases. Fighting allergic diseases knows three strategies: prevention, symptomatic and causative therapy. While remarkable progress was made in understanding molecular events in allergies as a prerequisite for effective prevention and desensitization, this review article focuses on the most efficient symptomatic treatments-that is using more and more specific antibodies neutralizing particular immune pathways. We highlight and classify recent and upcoming developments in the three prototype chronic allergic diseases allergic asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic eczema. In all three examples, biologics such as dupilumab or omalizumab become reliable and efficient therapeutic options. Finally, we give an outlook how a diagnostic and therapeutic workflow might look like in the near future for these three major burdens of society.

Hypersensitivity and adverse reactions to biologics for asthma and allergic diseases

Introduction: The development of new biologic agents has provided definite therapeutic advances but, like with any new medications, safety remains a concern.Areas covered: Using PubMed, we reviewed the literature on the adverse effects (AE) to five biologics approved for asthma and/or allergic diseases: one anti-IgE (omalizumab), three anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), and one anti-IL4 (dupilumab).Expert opinion: Biologic agents approved for asthma and allergic diseases are generally safe. Most common AE are benign and tolerated, though long-term safety is lacking for most of them. A slightly increased risk of anaphylaxis to omalizumab and reslizumab required the inclusion of a black box warning, informing the patient, the need for post-injection observation period, and the provision of epinephrine autoinjectors for self-administration when needed. Hypersensitivity reactions, mainly urticaria and very rarely serum sickness have occurred.

Evolving phenotypes to endotypes: is precision medicine achievable in asthma?

Introduction: The development of biologic molecules led to a drastic change in the therapeutic approach to asthma. With the prospect of acting on different pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease, the idea of precision medicine was developed, in which a single molecule is able to modify a specific triggering mechanism. Thus, it seemed limiting to stop at the distinction of patients phenotypes and the concept of endotypes became more relevant in the therapeutic approach.Areas covered: This review deepened the topic of precision medicine through the transition from phenotyping to endotyping. We performed a review of the literature, preferring articles quoted in Medline and published in journals with an impact factor. Results showed that it is fundamental to take into consideration the role of biomarkers and the related therapies currently available for precision medicine.Expert opinion: The possible overlap of patients in different phenotypes requires a more precise classification, which considers endotypization. With the development of biological drugs able to modify and modulate some pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease, the theoretical concept of endotyping becomes practical, allowing the clinician to choose the specific mechanism to 'attack' in order to control the disease.

Role of Biologics in Asthma

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma have disproportionally high morbidity and healthcare utilization as compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Although treatment options for these patients were previously limited, with unacceptable side effects, the emergence of biologic therapies for the treatment of asthma has provided promising targeted therapy for these patients. Biologic therapies target specific inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma, particularly in patients with an endotype driven by type 2 (T2) inflammation. In addition to anti-IgE therapy that has improved outcomes in allergic asthma for more than a decade, three anti-IL-5 biologics and one anti-IL-4R biologic have recently emerged as promising treatments for T2 asthma. These targeted therapies have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce oral corticosteroid use, and improve quality of life in appropriately selected patients. In addition to the currently approved biologic agents, several biologics targeting upstream inflammatory mediators are in clinical trials, with possible approval on the horizon. This article reviews the mechanism of action, indications, expected benefits, and side effects of each of the currently approved biologics for severe uncontrolled asthma and discusses promising therapeutic targets for the future.

The role of biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical and surgical treatment is challenging. It impacts patients' quality of life significantly. The pathophysiology of CRS has some similarities to allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) and includes eosinophilia, T-helper cell 2 cytokines, and local immunoglobilin E formation. Monoclonal antibody therapy has been used successfully in asthma and AR and more recently in CRS. Our was aim to systematically review the literature and identify the role of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) in the treatment of CRS with polyps (CRSwNP) and without polyps (CRSsNP), especially with regard to comparability with current medical treatment, efficacy, and risk of complications. In addition, the role of surgery and biologics was evaluated.

METHODS

We identified at total of 5341 relevant studies after a comprehensive database search. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, all 6 randomized, controlled trials.

RESULTS

Treatment with omalizumab and mepolizumab demonstrated improvements in endoscopic nasal polyp score (EPS) and symptoms score in patients with CRSwNP when compared with placebo. Reslizumab reduced nasal polyp size in patients with raised intranasal interleukin-5 levels. Dupilumab treatment resulted in a 70% reduction in EPS compared with 20% in the placebo group (p < 0.001). These MAbs target different inflammatory markers involved in the pathophysiology of CRSwNP. None of the studies reported on CRSsNP or combined surgery with biologics. No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Evidence demonstrates that use of MAbs leads to clinical improvement in CRSwNP. However, further research is required to determine their long-term effects, comparability to other medical treatments, and potential side effects.

Parasitic (Helminthic) Infection While on Asthma Biologic Treatment: Not Everything Is What It Seems

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airway that is characterized by bronchial hyperresponsiveness and variable airflow limitation. Approximately 235 million people are affected by asthma worldwide and 5–10% are considered to be refractory to standard asthma treatment. These patients are known to have repeated exacerbations requiring multiple courses of systemic corticosteroids and as a result, are at risk for increased adverse effects (i.e., osteoporosis, infections). Several new medications known as biologic agents have been approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthmatics. These biologic agents target essential parts of the cell-mediated allergic and to a lesser degree non-allergic immune response (IgE, IL-5, and IL-4/IL-13). They are gaining more favor in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma due to their efficacy and excellent safety profile. Despite the most common adverse events being minor, such as injection site reactions, upper respiratory infections, or headaches, these agents carry a small risk of more severe complications such as anaphylaxis and decreased defense against parasitic infections (PI). The incidence of PI compared with other rare adverse events is not well reported, and there are no consensus guidelines for risk prevention of PI in asthmatics undergoing evaluation for, or currently using, biologic therapy. Thus, this article sets out to review the incidence of reported PI and other rare adverse events among asthmatics using current FDA-approved biologic therapies. Secondly, we discuss the clinical implications for the importance of risk prevention of PI with the use of biologic therapies in asthmatics. Lastly, we share an educational handout to assist providers in informing their patients of behaviors that could potentially increase their risk of PI while being on a biologic agent.

New Treatments for Asthma

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous chronic airway disease with high prevalence of uncontrolled disease. New therapies, including biologics, are now available to treat T2 high asthma. Treatment of T2 low asthma remains a challenge. Asthma guidelines need be to updated to incorporate new therapeutics.

Influence of prolonged treatment with omalizumab on the development of solid epithelial cancer in patients with atopic asthma and chronic idiopathic urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether prolonged treatment with omalizumab influences development or progression of solid epithelial cancer in patients with atopic asthma or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention and observational studies. Randomized controlled trials were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, comparative observational studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and non-comparative observational studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and grey literature for eligible studies to November 2017. All searches were updated in January 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES

Randomized, quasi-randomized, controlled clinical trials and observational studies were included if they involved patients ≥ 12 years with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma or chronic idiopathic urticaria treated with omalizumab for ≥ 40 weeks. Eligible comparators included standard of care, placebo, cromoglycate or no treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty seven unique studies were eligible for inclusion; however, only twelve (7.2%, n = 11 758) reported any outcome of interest, none of which involved patients with urticaria. 195 cancer events were reported. We found no statistically significant increase in the odds of study-emergent solid epithelial cancer in patients randomized to long-term treatment with omalizumab compared to standard of care (Peto OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.11, 3.74, I²  = 41%). Less than one per cent of participants of non-comparative observational studies (n = 2350) were diagnosed with a solid epithelial tumour (meta-proportion: 0.86% [95% CI: 0.24, 1.86%, I²  = 56%]). In the only comparative observational study reporting on cancer, the proportion of study-emergent solid epithelial tumour events was nearly identical in both study groups (omalizumab: 2.3%, standard of care: 2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether long-term treatment with omalizumab influences development or progression of solid epithelial cancer in these patient populations. PROSPERO registration # CRD 42018082211.