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

Precision medicine for severe asthma - Biological targeted therapy

Severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous chronic airway inflammatory disease. Current treatment strategies are increasingly focused on disease classification, facilitating the transition towards personalized medicine by integrating biomarkers and monoclonal antibodies for tailored therapeutic approaches. Several approved biological agents, including anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin (IL)-4, anti-IL-5, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) monoclonal antibodies, have demonstrated significant efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, eosinophil counts, improving lung function, minimizing oral corticosteroid usage, and enhancing patients' quality of life. The utilization of these biological agents has brought about profound transformations in the management of severe asthma. This article provides a comprehensive review on biomarkers and biological agents for severe asthma while emphasizing the increasing importance of further research into its pathogenesis and novel treatment modalities.

Advancing Care in Severe Asthma: The Art of Switching Biologics

Biologics targeting IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP are crucial in severe asthma treatment. Research, including randomized controlled trials and real-world studies, has been conducted to assess their efficacy and identify patient characteristics that may predict positive responses. The effectiveness of switching biologics, especially given overlaps in treatment eligibility, and the clinical outcomes post-cessation are critical areas of investigation. This work reviews the effects of switching between these biologics and the indicators of treatment success or failure. Insights are primarily derived from real-world experiences, focusing on patients transitioning from one monoclonal antibody to another. Moreover, this review aims to provide insights into the effectiveness, safety, and broader implications of switching biologics, enhancing understanding for clinicians to optimize severe asthma management. The article underlines the importance of a patient-centered approach, biomarker assessment, and the evolving nature of asthma treatment in making informed decisions about biologic therapy.

Personalized Medicine in Severe Asthma: From Biomarkers to Biologics

Severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous clinical condition presented as chronic inflammation of the airways. Conventional treatments are mainly focused on symptom control; however, there has been a shift towards personalized medicine. Identification of different phenotypes driven by complex pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes), especially those driven by type-2 (T2) inflammation, has led to improved treatment outcomes. Combining biomarkers with T2-targeting monoclonal antibodies is crucial for developing personalized treatment strategies. Several biological agents, including anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, and anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin/interleukin-4, have been approved for the treatment of severe asthma. These biological therapies have demonstrated efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, lowering eosinophil count, improving lung function, diminishing oral corticosteroid use, and improving the quality of life in selected patients. Severe asthma management is undergoing a profound transformation with the introduction of ongoing and future biological therapies. The availability of novel treatment options has facilitated the adoption of phenotype/endotype-specific approaches and disappearance of generic interventions. The transition towards precision medicine plays a crucial role in meticulously addressing the individual traits of asthma pathobiology. An era of tailored strategies has emerged, allowing for the successful targeting of immune-inflammatory responses that underlie uncontrolled T2-high asthma. These personalized approaches hold great promise for improving the overall efficacy and outcomes in the management of severe asthma. This article comprehensively reviews currently available biological agents and biomarkers for treating severe asthma. With the expanding repertoire of therapeutic options, it is becoming increasingly crucial to comprehend the influencing factors, understand the pathogenesis, and track treatment progress in severe asthma.

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

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

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

Advances in pathophysiological understanding and the elucidation of a type 2 inflammatory signature with interleukins 4, 5 and 13 at its center have led to the development of targeted antibody therapies that are now approved for the treatment of severe asthma. In suitable patients, these medications reduce asthma exacerbations and the necessity for oral corticosteroids, improve asthma control, quality of life and lung function. A proportion of patients with severe asthma may even achieve remission under ongoing biologic therapy. Type-2 inflammatory comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe asthma, sharing overlapping pathophysiology and may similarly respond to biologic treatment. Here, we give an overview of the six biologic therapies currently approved for severe asthma and review randomized clinical trials and real-life studies in asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. We also discuss selection of biologics according to licensing criteria, asthma phenotype and biomarkers, monitoring of treatment response and proceedings in case of insufficient outcome under therapy.

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.

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

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

[Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma]

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Benralizumab in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Multicentre Real-Life Experience

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are monoclonal antibodies directed against anti-IL-5 and anti-IL5R, respectively, and their use reduces the exacerbation rate and maintains oral corticosteroid requirements in severe eosinophilic asthma. Previous studies have tested the therapeutic switch between two biologics with excellent results, further demonstrating the heterogeneity of asthmatic disease and the complexity of the therapeutic choice. It remains unclear if such patients may improve following a switch from mepolizumab to benralizumab.

AIMS

Within a multicentre real-life setting, we decided to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a therapeutic switch to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma initially treated with mepolizumab, who experienced sub-optimal responses. The secondary aim was to identify the clinical factors associated with a better response to benralizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated at six Italian specialist centres, who were switched from mepolizumab to benralizumab following a sub-optimal response, defined as a partial or total lack of clinical remission (i.e., frequent severe exacerbations and/or poorly controlled symptoms and/or higher OCS daily use in patients with a poor or moderate response in the global evaluation of treatment effectiveness scale), after at least 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included in the analysis (mean age 56.76 ± 11.97 years, 65% female). At 6 months of treatment with benralizumab, the ACT score was significantly higher than the ACT score with mepolizumab (20.24 ± 3.38 vs. 16.77 ± 3.48, p < 0.0001); the mean number of daily SABA inhalations was significantly lower after 6 months and 12 months of treatment with benralizumab than that after treatment with mepolizumab; OCS intake and the prednisone median dosage at 6 months of treatment with benralizumab were significantly lower than those with mepolizumab. Benralizumab treatment resulted in a marked improvement in asthma control, suppressed blood eosinophil levels and reduction in the number of exacerbations in the subgroup of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and nasal polyposis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma who experience a partial response to mepolizumab could benefit from switching to benralizumab, and even more those who have nasal polyposis.

Switching Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma

Currently, three classes of monoclonal antibodies targeting type 2 inflammation pathways are available in Italy for the treatment of severe asthma: anti-IgE (Omalizumab), anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα (Mepolizumab and Benralizumab), and anti-IL-4Rα (Dupilumab). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-life studies have been conducted to define their efficacy and identify baseline patients' characteristics potentially predictive of favorable outcomes. Switching to another monoclonal antibody is recommended in case of a lack of benefits. The aim of this work is to review the current knowledge on the impact of switching biological therapies in severe asthma as well as on predictors of treatment response or failure. Almost all of the information about switching from a previous monoclonal antibody to another comes from a real-life setting. In the available studies, the most frequent initial biologic was Omalizumab and patients who were switched because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate despite OCS dependence. The choice of the most suitable treatment may be guided by the patient's clinical history, biomarkers of endotype (mainly blood eosinophils and FeNO), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis). Due to overlapping eligibility, larger investigations characterizing the clinical profile of patients benefiting from switching to different monoclonal antibodies are needed.

Biological therapy for severe asthma - Indian perspectives and challenges

Asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease. Severe asthma makes up only a minority of asthma patients encountered in clinical settings but accounts for substantial healthcare utilisation in terms of manpower as well as economic allocation. The availability of monoclonal antibodies has a major impact on severe asthmatics and has provided excellent clinical results in properly selected patients. The discovery of new molecules might present uncertainties to clinicians as to the best agent to institute in an individual patient. The practice scenario in India is unique when it comes to the commercial availability of monoclonal antibodies, patient attitudes, and allocation of the healthcare budget. The present review dissects and summarises the available monoclonal antibodies for asthma treatment in India, the perspectives of Indian patients on biological therapy, and the challenges encountered by patients and physicians in this regard. We provide practical suggestions for utilising monoclonal antibodies and deciding on the optimal agent for a given patient.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients with NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease receiving aspirin or biologicals

OBJECTIVE

NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD) is characterized by exacerbation of respiratory symptoms after NSAID intake. While research for specific treatment options continues in patients who cannot tolerate or are unresponsive to aspirin treatment after aspirin desensitization (ATAD), biologicals have emerged as a new therapeutic option in NERD patients. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life, and the sinonasal and respiratory outcomes of NERD patients treated with ATAD or biologicals.

METHODS

Patients who have been followed up at a tertiary care allergy center and who have been receiving at least one of ATAD, mepolizumab or omalizumab for at least six months were included. Evaluations were made using sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22), asthma control test (ACT), short form-36 (SF-36), blood eosinophil counts, need for recurrent functional endoscopic sinus surgeries (FESS), and asthma or rhinitis exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS).

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients comprised of 35 (59%) females and 24 (41%) males with a mean age of 46.1 (min-max, 20-70) years were included. The baseline blood eosinophil count was higher, and a significant decrease in blood eosinophil counts was observed in the mepolizumab group compared to ATAD group (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). At follow-up, the rate of recurrent FESS was lower in the group that received mepolizumab (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In NERD patients, mepolizumab significantly decreased blood eosinophil counts and recurrent FESS. There was no significant difference between the patients receiving ATAD or mepolizumab regarding other clinical parameters.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Switching from one biologic to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: An ANANKE study post hoc analysis

Background

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease driven by eosinophilic inflammation in the majority of cases. Despite biologic therapy patients may still be sub-optimally controlled, and the choice of the best biologic is a matter of debate. Indeed, switching between biologics is common, but no official guidelines are available and real-world data are limited.

Materials and methods

In this post hoc analysis of the Italian, multi-center, observational, retrospective study, ANANKE. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab were divided in two groups based on history of previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced [suboptimal response] vs naïve). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment. Change over time in blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use following benralizumab initiation were collected in the two groups.

Results

A total of 147 biologic-naïve and 58 biologic-experienced (34 omalizumab, 19 mepolizumab, and 5 omalizumab-mepolizumab) patients were enrolled. Biologic-experienced patients were more likely to be atopic and have a higher AER despite more frequent OCS use. Similar reductions in AER (&gt;90% in both groups), OCS use (≥49% reduction in dosage and ≥41% able to eliminate OCS), ACT improvement (≥7 points gained in 48 weeks) and lung function (≥300 mL of FEV1 improvement in 48 weeks) were observed after benralizumab introduction within the two groups. There were no registered discontinuations of benralizumab for safety reasons.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, patients who were switched to benralizumab because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to be atopic and more often treated with omalizumab. Benralizumab is effective in both naïve patients and those previously treated with a biologic.

Eosinophilic Asthma, Phenotypes-Endotypes and Current Biomarkers of Choice

Asthma phenotyping and endotyping are constantly evolving. Currently, several biologic agents have been developed towards a personalized approach to asthma management. This review will focus on different eosinophilic phenotypes and Th2-associated endotypes with eosinophilic inflammation. Additionally, airway remodeling is analyzed as a key feature of asthmatic eosinophilic endotypes. In addition, evidence of biomarkers is examined with a predictive value to identify patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma who may benefit from new treatment options. Finally, there will be a discussion on the results from clinical trials regarding severe eosinophilic asthma and how the inhibition of the eosinophilic pathway by targeted treatments has led to the reduction of recurrent exacerbations.

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.

Budget Impact Analysis of Mepolizumab for Eligible Patients in the Setting of a Severe Asthma Clinic Within Dubai Health Authority (DHA)

Purpose

To estimate 5-years budgetary impact of introducing mepolizumab to eligible patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma treated at a tertiary care hospital within Dubai Health Authority (DHA).

Patients and Methods

A budget impact analysis (BIA) model was adapted to the setting of Rashid Hospital, DHA to estimate the budgetary implications of introducing first-in-class anti-IL5 (mepolizumab) as add-on therapy for eligible patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The eligible patient population (n=60) was estimated from aggregate data provided by the clinic. Patients were eligible to treatment with mepolizumab if they had ≥2 exacerbation in the previous year and eosinophil count ≥150 cell/µL. The analysis compared the cost of treating patients in two alternative scenarios; a scenario where patients are treated with optimized usual care or with available biologic as add-on therapy, and a second scenario where mepolizumab is fully accessible to eligible patients.

Results

Administration of mepolizumab to eligible patients at Rashid Hospital is predicted to result in overall savings estimated at £270,545 over a 5-year time horizon. Exacerbation rates could not be indirectly compared for mepolizumab and omalizumab, since treatment continuation rules were defined differently. Therefore, these parameters were directly taken from the clinical trials for mepolizumab and omalizumab. The savings were estimated due to drug acquisition costs (£269,900) and estimated reduction in exacerbation (n=15). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model results was most sensitive to changing the method of calculating omalizumab dose and varying the drug acquisition cost of omalizumab by ±20%.

Conclusion

The BIA showed that full accessibility of mepolizumab to eligible severe asthma patients is predicted to be budget saving in the Dubai Health Authority. This evaluation is relevant to healthcare decision making as it demonstrates that mepolizumab is budget saving for eligible patients, while reducing burden by improving their control and symptoms.

Analysis of predictors of response to anti-IgE therapy in patients with severe atopic bronchial asthma in real clinical practice

Introduction. Guidelines on Biological Therapy for Bronchial Asthma of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) identified a number of controversial issues for additional outcome analysis using randomized clinical trials and data from routine clinical practice. In particular, there is unmet need to clarify algorithms for prescribing biologicals using predictors of response and its timing, taking into account risk factors and multimorbidity. Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody of IgG1 class used for the treatment of severe refractory atopic bronchial asthma (BA) and a variety of IgE-mediated diseases. Among biological agents, this "pioneer molecule" has the greatest experience in the "allergology and immunology" profile. Detailed description of the "nonresponders" portraits will allow to perform the therapy response assessment on time and facilitate rational planning of individual therapy, which is a prerequisite for biologicals era. Using only routine methods, it is possible to perform initial and dynamic screening to phenotype a heterogeneous cohort of patients with severe asthma and chose the optimal strategy. Aim. To identify predictors of nonresponse to omalizumab anti-IgE therapy in patients with severe atopic BA and to establish optimal timing of efficacy assessment using retrospective analysis of data from the Biologic Therapy Registry of Allergology and Immunology in routine clinical practice. Materials and methods. A retrospective single-center registry study was conducted at the Allergy and Immunology Reference Center from June 2017 to August 2021. 135 patients with severe BA, with confirmed perennial sensitization, who received omalizumab according to the recommendations of the current version of GINA, were selected from the clinical and dynamic observational system (registry). Dosing regimen and administration frequency of omalizumab were determined in accordance with the instructions for the drug. Assessment of therapy efficacy was performed at the time point 4, 6 and 12 months. Patients were subgrouped into "responders" and "non-responders" according to the following criteria: ACT score less than 19 and/or difference between initial ACT score in dynamics less than 3 points; forced expiratory volume in the first second less than 80%; combination of these two criteria. Nonparametric methods of descriptive statistics were used in data processing: median, interquartile range. Differences were considered significant at p0.05. MannWhitney U-test, KruskalWallis one-way analysis of variance, and Fisher's 2 test were used to compare quantitative characteristics. Results. Heterogeneous subgroups of patients differing in reaching the criteria of "non-responders" to treatment were identified; the informativity of modifiable and unmodifiable factors differed at time-points of dynamic observation. In the differential analysis, two profiles of "nonresponders" were defined in combination with the most significant predictors of "nonrsponse" to omalizumab. According to the data obtained, one of the clinical phenotypes, namely the combination of severe asthma with the Samters triad, corresponded to the characteristics of the patient "nonresponders": age of onset is about 30 years, females, severe exacerbations of BA while taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, accompanied with high levels of eosinophilia. Conclusion. The data obtained illustrates the hypothesis of pathogenetic heterogeneity of severe BA with the phenomenon of overlapping phenotypes and can serve as an additional orienteer for creating the individual plan of anti-IgE therapy in real clinical practice.

Switch from Omalizumab to Benralizumab in Allergic Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: A Real-Life Experience from Southern Italy

Background. The wide availability of monoclonal antibodies for the add-on therapy of severe asthma currently allows for the personalization of biologic treatment by selecting the most appropriate drug for each patient. However, subjects with overlapping allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes can be often eligible to more than one biologic, so that the first pharmacologic choice can be quite challenging for clinicians. Within such a context, the aim of our real-life investigation was to verify whether allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by an initial biologic treatment with omalizumab, could experience better therapeutic results from a pharmacologic shift to benralizumab. Patients and methods. Twenty allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, unsuccessfully treated with omalizumab and then switched to benralizumab, were assessed for at least 1 year in order to detect eventual changes in disease exacerbations, symptom control, oral corticosteroid intake, lung function, and blood eosinophils. Results. In comparison to the previous omalizumab therapy, after 1 year of treatment with benralizumab our patients experienced significant improvements in asthma exacerbation rate (p < 0.01), rescue medication need (p < 0.001), asthma control test (ACT) score (p < 0.05), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) (p < 0.05), and blood eosinophil count (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, with respect to the end of omalizumab treatment, the score of sino-nasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22) significantly decreased after therapy with benralizumab (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The results of this real-life study suggest that the pharmacologic shift from omalizumab to benralizumab can be a valuable therapeutic approach for allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by anti-IgE treatment.

REal worlD Effectiveness and Safety of Mepolizumab in a Multicentric Spanish Cohort of Asthma Patients Stratified by Eosinophils: The REDES Study

Background

The efficacy of mepolizumab is well documented in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although the stringent selection criteria adopted by SEA clinical trials limits the generalizability of results.

Objective

Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in patients with SEA in Spain. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations 12 months after starting mepolizumab compared to the baseline rate in the 12 months prior to treatment. Patients were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil counts.

Methods

We conducted a multicentric observational cohort study of SEA patients treated with mepolizumab across 24 specialized hospital asthma units in Spain. Severe exacerbation rate, lung function, oral corticosteroid use (OCS) and asthma control test (ACT) were retrospectively collected and compared during the 12-month pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment. Adverse events were also investigated.

Results

A total of 318 patients with SEA were included (mean age: 56.6 years, 69.2% female). Exacerbation rates decreased by 77.5%, and 50.6% of patients did not suffer any exacerbations during the 12 months of treatment. The difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) pre- and post-bronchodilator after starting mepolizumab was 0.21 (0.46) L (95% CI 0.14–0.27) (p < 0.001). Exacerbations and lung function significantly improved across all eosinophil subgroups. Among the 98 patients on OCS, 47.8% were able to discontinue this treatment and the mean daily dose was decreased by 59.9%. The baseline ACT score was 14.1, increasing by a mean (SD) of 6.7 points (1.9) at 12 months. Adverse events related to mepolizumab were uncommon.

Conclusions

This real-world study of SEA patients confirms that mepolizumab is effective in reducing clinically meaningful exacerbations, improving lung function, and decreasing OCS dependence and mean OCS dose at 12 months, irrespective of baseline eosinophil counts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01597-9.

Recent Insights into the Management of Inflammation in Asthma

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

Effectiveness of Switching Biologics for Severe Asthma Patients in Japan: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In Japan, biologic therapy was initiated for patients with severe asthma in 2009. In recent years, four biologics with different mechanisms of action have become available in the clinical setting. However, the efficacy of switching between biologics remains uncertain.

METHODS

To elucidate the efficacy of switching between biologics, 97 patients were enrolled who had received any biologic therapy for severe asthma at Jikei University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, from July 2009 to December 2020. We retrospectively examined the patient characteristics, biomarkers, pulmonary function test results, selected biologics, and efficacy.

RESULTS

Thirty-one males and 66 females received any biologics. The mean age was 53.3 years at the initiation of biologic therapy. Initially, 33, 41, 15 and eight patients received omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, respectively. Among three representative indicators for biologics administration, the peripheral blood eosinophil count, serum IgE levels and fractional exhaled nitric oxide, 64% of the patients had two indicators, and 28% had three indicators. Thirty-four patients (35%) switched from the initial biologic to another, and the reasons for switching included persistent asthmatic symptoms (n=22), schedule of hospital visits (n=5), and other reasons. Thus, the treatment was effective in 11 patients after switching. In addition, two patients received combination therapy with different biologics. Eighteen patients (19%) interrupted treatment for various reasons. Regardless of whether the biologic was the initial therapy, the overall efficacy of the four biologics was 60% based on the global evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Switching between biologics can be a promising option for severe asthma patients in whom treatment with an initial biologic is ineffective.

Therapeutic Effects of Benralizumab Assessed in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Real-Life Evaluation Correlated with Allergic and Non-Allergic Phenotype Expression

Background

Benralizumab can be utilized as add-on biological treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. However, so far only a few real-life studies have been published with regard to the use of this anti-IL-5 receptor humanized monoclonal antibody.

Objective

The primary aim of this multicenter observational investigation has been to assess the therapeutic effects of benralizumab in patients with severe uncontrolled, corticosteroid refractory eosinophilic asthma. The secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of benralizumab with regard to positive or negative skin prick test (SPT).

Methods

Clinical, functional, and laboratory parameters were evaluated in order to verify the therapeutic actions of benralizumab in atopic and non atopic subjects with difficult-to-treat eosinophilic asthma. Moreover, a comparative evaluation was carried out in relation to the presence or absence of SPT positivity.

Results

After 6 months of add-on biological therapy with benralizumab, our 111 patients experienced a marked improvement of their severe eosinophilic asthma, expressed by significant changes in asthma exacerbation rate, prednisone intake, daily use of short-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists (SABA), asthma control test (ACT) score, asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) score (56 patients), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), blood eosinophil count, blood basophil count (59 patients), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels (39 patients). In addition, significantly more effective outcomes were detected in patients with positive SPT, when compared to subjects with negative SPT, only in regard to asthma exacerbation number, ACT score, and daily SABA utilization. No significant correlation was found between serum IgE concentrations and each of all measured parameters.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance

Taken together, the results of this real-world study indicate that in both allergic and non-allergic subjects benralizumab can be used as a valuable pharmacotherapeutic option for add-on biological therapy of severe eosinophilic asthma, regardless of SPT positivity or negativity.

Biologics in severe asthma

Asthma is a chronic airway disease consisting of usually variable airflow limitation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Many different phenotypes characterize the clinical expression of asthma, determined by heterogeneous inflammatory patterns driven by distinct cellular and molecular mechanisms known as endotypes. Inside the complex framework of asthma pathobiology, several molecules such as immunoglobulins E (IgE), pro-inflammatory cytokines and their receptors can be targeted by present and future biological treatments of severe asthma. Within this context, already registered monoclonal antibodies including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab may interfere at various levels with the pathogenic pathways responsible for type-2 airway inflammation. In particular, these drugs target IgE (omalizumab), IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab), IL-5 receptor (benralizumab) and IL-4/IL-13 receptors (dupilumab), respectively. Moreover, other biological therapies are under evaluation in pre-marketing trials, mainly aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies directed against innate cytokines such as IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). Among current and perspective therapeutic approaches, clinicians can choose phenotype/endotype-driven tailored treatments, able to pursue an effective control of difficult to treat type-2 asthma.

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

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

Molecular Targets for Biological Therapies of Severe Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous respiratory disease characterized by usually reversible bronchial obstruction, which is clinically expressed by different phenotypes driven by complex pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). Within this context, during the last years several molecular effectors and signalling pathways have emerged as suitable targets for biological therapies of severe asthma, refractory to standard treatments. Indeed, various therapeutic antibodies currently allow to intercept at different levels the chain of pathogenic events leading to type 2 (T2) airway inflammation. In addition to pro-allergic immunoglobulin E (IgE), that chronologically represents the first molecule against which an anti-asthma monoclonal antibody (omalizumab) was developed, today other targets are successfully exploited by biological treatments of severe asthma. In particular, pro-eosinophilic interleukin 5 (IL-5) can be targeted by mepolizumab or reslizumab, whereas benralizumab is a selective blocker of IL-5 receptor. Moreover, dupilumab behaves as a dual receptor antagonist of pleiotropic interleukins 4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). Besides these drugs that are already available in medical practice, other biologics are under clinical development such as those targeting innate cytokines, also including the alarmin thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which plays a key role in the pathogenesis of type 2 asthma. Therefore, ongoing and future biological therapies are significantly changing the global scenario of severe asthma management. These new therapeutic options make it possible to implement phenotype/endotype-specific treatments, that are delineating personalized approaches precisely addressing the individual traits of asthma pathobiology. Such tailored strategies are thus allowing to successfully target the immune-inflammatory responses underlying uncontrolled T2-high asthma.

Anti-IL5 Therapies for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Literature Review and Practical Insights

Severe refractory asthma (SRA) still has a high economic and social impact, including a reduction in quality of life (QoL), productivity, a greater risk of exacerbations and emergency department (ED) visits. Another major issue is the need of oral corticosteroids (OCS), often due to a poor response to standard therapies or the lack of indication for currently available biological drugs. A thorough understanding of the immunological pathways and eosinophilopoietic processes allows a correct application of the new pharmacological strategies and leads to better clinical responses. For these unmet needs, several monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have been introduced over the past few years. These are mainly available for allergic and especially eosinophilic uncontrolled refractory asthma. As the number of therapeutic options increases, the choice of biological drugs can be made only after careful considerations of the particular asthma endotype, patients’ comorbidities and clinical data. The selection of the correct therapeutic option can therefore be guided after a careful evaluation of the particular endotype and phenotype, from the combined evaluation of inflammatory biomarkers, clinical picture and comorbidities. The careful evaluation of all these parameters can therefore help the physician in the optimal management of these complex patients, for whom it is often possible to achieve exceptional results by managing the available options in the best possible way. The aim of this review is to define the positioning of the biological drugs currently available for type 2 asthma, with a special focus on options for eosinophilic asthma in the context of the most recent knowledge of immunological pathways.

Biologics in severe asthma: the overlap endotype - opportunities and challenges

INTRODUCTION

Patients with severe asthma experience a significant burden of symptoms, disease exacerbations and medication side-effects. Severe asthma interferes with the patients' quality of life and has high health-care costs. New targeted biologic therapies have improved the management of severe asthma by significantly reducing exacerbations and maintenance corticosteroid use, and also improving lung function and patient quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Not all severe asthmatics are eligible for such therapies. Those with allergic and eosinophilic asthma, usually referred to as 'T2-high' asthma benefit from anti-IgE and anti-IL-5/5 R antibodies respectively, whereas some asthmatics are eligible for both: 'overlap' endotype. In this review, we present briefly the monoclonal antibodies that have been approved in the management of severe asthma and we focus on the 'overlap' endotype.

EXPERT OPINION

Since these therapies are costly, it is extremely important to choose the right treatment for the right patient especially in the 'overlapping' one. The decision is mainly based on the judgment of the clinician and is often driven by the most easily obtainable biomarker, thus the blood eosinophil count. Comorbidities, patient's input and administration frequency may aid the decision of choosing one over another biologic.