Omalizumab in children with inadequately controlled severe allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma

Meta-analysis of the adoption of omalizumab in the treatment of pediatric allergic diseases

Introduction

Allergic diseases are common chronic conditions in children, omalizumab has a wide range of adoptions in various diseases. A meta-analysis was implemented to demonstrate the efficacy of omalizumab in the therapy of pediatric allergic diseases.

Materials and methods

English databases were searched. The search terms included "Omalizumab", "Children", "Allergic asthma", and "Atopic dermatitis". The literature was screened regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data were extracted and analyzed using RevMan5.3.

Results

a total of six suitable studies, comprising 2761 patients, were selected for inclusion. The meta-analysis results implied that at 24 weeks, OR for worsening of symptoms in children was 0.10 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.41), Z = 3.24, P = 0.001 (P < 0.05); at 52 weeks, OR was 0.27 (95 % CI 0.09-0.83), Z = 2.28, P = 0.02 (P < 0.05); and during treatment, OR for adverse events in children was 0.87 (95 % CI 0.60-1.29), Z = 0.68, P = 0.49 (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

the study comprised six investigations that examined the effectiveness of omalizumab in treating pediatric allergic diseases. The findings demonstrated that, in comparison to standard treatment, omalizumab can greatly alleviate allergy-related clinical symptoms in children, slow down disease progression, and has a higher safety profile with fewer adverse reactions. These results have practical implications and highlight the potential value of omalizumab in pediatric allergy treatment.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

[Biologics in severe childhood asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma in children remains relatively rare. It is no longer considered as a single disease but rather as a syndrome corresponding to different phenotypes and distinct pathophysiological pathways. Various biomarkers can contribute to phenotyping, essentially specific IgE test results, blood eosinophil counts, the exhaled fraction of NO (FeNO) assay, as well as deep lung biomarkers from induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage or bronchial biopsy.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

In children, the biologics currently approved for severe asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab and dupilumab from the age of 6, and tezepelumab from the age of 12.

PERSPECTIVES

Benralizumab and tezepelumab offer promising perspectives and a pediatric extension could be of interest in future treatment of severe pediatric asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on physiopathological mechanisms, biologics represent a new and promising approach in the treatment of asthma. That said, the long-term efficacy and impact of these treatments on the natural history of the disease require further investigation. It is of paramount importance to take into account the specificities of pediatric asthma and, more particularly, to conduct clinical trials in younger patients.

Long-Term Safety of Omalizumab in Children with Asthma and/or Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A 4-Year Prospective Study in Real Life

Background: Insufficient data are available on the long-term "real-life" safety profile of omalizumab in children. This study evaluated the long-term safety of omalizumab in a pediatric cohort with severe asthma or chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Methods: A monocentric, prospective study evaluated the long-term safety of omalizumab in patients aged 6-18 years. Each patient completed the standardized MedDRA questionnaire to identify adverse events (AEs). Results: In total, 23 patients, median age 15 (14-18) years, affected by severe asthma (60.8%) or CSU (39.2%), treated with omalizumab for 2 (1-4) years were enrolled. The most common AEs belong to the system organ class (SOC) of general disorders and administration-site conditions (37.17%). Skin and subcutaneous tissue problems represent the second most frequently reported AEs (24.35%). Central nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders were quite frequent (15.38% and 8.97%, respectively). Other adverse events were tachycardia (5.12%), vertigo and abdominal pain (2.60% and 3.86%, respectively), and dry eye (1.3%). Only one patient reported herpes virus infection during treatment (1.3%). No cases of anaphylaxis, hemopathies, uronephropathies, respiratory, psychiatric, hepatobiliary, or oncological pathologies were reported. Conclusions: Long-term "real-life" treatment with omalizumab in children appears well tolerated. Its safety and efficacy profile makes omalizumab an excellent alternative in severe asthma and CSU in children.

Response to Omalizumab as an Add-On Therapy in the Treatment of Allergic Asthma in Adult Chinese Patients-A Retrospective Study

(a) Background: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE humanized monoclonal antibody marketed in China for the conventional treatment of poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of omalizumab, but the data from studies in actual clinical treatment are still relatively limited. (b) Methods: Thirty-two patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab on the basis of ICS-LABA (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonist) were selected. Clinical characteristics before and after treatment were collected to analyze the relationship between changes in serum total IgE levels and peripheral blood EOS (eosinophil) levels, FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), PEF (peak expiratory flow), OCS (oral glucocorticoid) dosage, ATC (asthma control test) score, and the number of acute exacerbations and the treatment response, in order to observe the efficacy of omalizumab in addition to primary therapy, and to investigate whether baseline clinical characteristics such as serum total IgE and EOS levels could predict a treatment response. (c) Results: Using the ACT score as an evaluation, 68.75% of patients benefited from omalizumab treatment at the end of 16 weeks. The response group has a reduction in OCS dosage (p-values of 0.026 and 0.039), a significant reduction in ACT scores (both p < 0.001), and a reduction in the number of acute exacerbations (p = 0.034 and 0.025, respectively) after omalizumab treatment. The binary logistics analysis of factors affecting the effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of allergic asthma were total serum IgE and the presence of comorbidities (p-values of 0.039 and 0.046, respectively). (d) Conclusions: Combining omalizumab with ICS-LABA for 16 weeks significantly improves asthma symptoms in Chinese adults and can be used as an add-on treatment. In addition, high serum IgE levels and the presence of comorbidities were predictors of its therapeutic efficacy.

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Diagnosis and management of asthma in children

Asthma is the the most common chronic respiratory condition of childhood worldwide, with around 14% of children and young people affected. Despite the high prevalence, paediatric asthma outcomes are inadequate, and there are several avoidable deaths each year. Characteristic asthma features include wheeze, shortness of breath and cough, which are typically triggered by a number of possible stimuli. There are several diagnostic challenges, and as a result, both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of paediatric asthma remain problematic.Effective asthma management involves a holistic approach addressing both pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, as well as education and self-management aspects. Working in partnership with children and families is key in promoting good outcomes. Education on how to take treatment effectively, trigger avoidance, modifiable risk factors and actions to take during acute attacks via personalised asthma action plans is essential.This review aimed to provide an overview of good clinical practice in the diagnosis and management of paediatric asthma. We discuss the current diagnostic challenges and predictors of life-threatening attacks. Additionally, we outline the similarities and differences in global paediatric asthma guidelines and highlight potential future developments in care. It is hoped that this review will be useful for healthcare providers working in a range of child health settings.

Omalizumab: An Optimal Choice for Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first monoclonal antibody that was globally approved as a personalized treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. This review summarizes the knowledge of almost two decades of use of omalizumab to answer some important everyday clinical practice questions, concerning its efficacy and safety and its association with other asthma-related and drug-related parameters. Evidence suggests that omalizumab improves asthma control and reduces the incidence and frequency of exacerbations in patients with severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is also effective in those patients in reducing corticosteroid use and healthcare utilization, while it also seems to improve lung function. Several biomarkers have been recognized in predicting its efficacy in its target group of patients, while the optimal duration for evaluating its efficacy is between 16 and 32 weeks.

Severe pediatric asthma therapy: Omalizumab-A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety profile

Background

Omalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine two critical outcomes of omalizumab therapy, asthma exacerbation rate, the reduction of the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and the improvement of the lung function as a secondary outcome using the following keywords in the MEDLINE database: "anti-IgE, severe asthma, children, and randomized controlled trial." We specifically selected papers that included moderate-to-severe asthma patients and collected data on children and adolescents.

Results

Four RCT studies (total number of patients = 1,239) were included in the analysis. The reported data on exacerbations showed an overall improvement in the exacerbation rate with a decreased use of inhaled steroids and some other minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Conclusions

Our systematic review confirms the known findings that omalizumab therapy decreases asthma exacerbation rate and reduces background therapy inhaled steroid dose. Therefore, add-on therapy with omalizumab shows a good efficacy and safety profile, thus proving to be a useful additional therapeutic option.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023396785.

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe or Poorly Controlled Allergic Diseases in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of severe or uncontrolled allergic diseases in children.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov databases up to 23rd July 2021, with no language limitations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with other treatments or placebo in children with severe or inadequately controlled allergic diseases were considered. The primary outcomes of interest were asthma exacerbation rate, allergic symptom score, desensitisation achievement for food allergy (FA), and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). The study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers. Quality assessments were conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and data were pooled using a random-effects model if I ² was 50% or greater in the Cochrane Review Manager.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 RCTs [six on severe asthma, one on atopic dermatitis (AD), one on seasonal allergic rhinitis [SAR], and one on FA] consisting of 2,376 participants met the inclusion criteria. For severe asthma, omalizumab may reduce exacerbations at 12 weeks [risk ratio (RR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.89], 24 weeks (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence), and 52 weeks (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence) and reduce the dose of inhalation corticosteroid compared with placebo. For severe AD, the association between omalizumab and allergic symptom improvement [i.e., SCORing Atopic Dermatitis or Paediatric Allergic Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PADQLQ)] was not confirmed. For severe SAR, omalizumab showed greater improvement in symptom load scores and saved rescue medication days. For FA, omalizumab demonstrated superiority in desensitisation compared with placebo. To date, no clinically significant drug-related SAEs have been reported.

CONCLUSION

For severe or uncontrolled asthma, AD, SAR, and FA, omalizumab may be associated with improved allergic symptoms and safety in children. Future studies should focus on the benefits and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of omalizumab in multiple allergic diseases compared with other treatments.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42021271863].

Effectiveness and Safety Studies of Omalizumab in Children and Adolescents With Moderate-To-Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is currently approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in patients 6 years and older.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as an add-on therapy option for moderate-severe allergic asthma in patients aged 6-20 years old.

METHODS

The studies published from July, 1970 to May, 2021 were searched from the electronic databases which followed keywords: ("anti-IgE" OR "anti-immunoglobulin E" OR "anti-IgE antibody" OR "omalizumab" OR "rhuMAb-E25" OR "Xolair") AND "asthma" AND ("child" OR "children" OR "adolescents" OR "youth" OR "teenager" OR "kids" OR "pediatric"). Thirteen studies were pooled to determine the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab. Efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model depending on heterogeneity. Safety endpoints were evaluated by odds ratio.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. In this meta-analysis, our results showed that fractional exhaled nitric oxide and asthma control test scores were significantly improved with omalizumab treatment. Serum immunoglobulin E was also decreased in children with moderate-to-severe asthma after treatment with omalizumab. The analysis found that there was no significant difference between pre-and post-treatment in forced expiratory volume in one second/ forced vital capacity ratio, forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of vital capacity, or FEV1. Overall, more adverse events occurred with omalizumab compared to placebo. However, the degree was mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that omalizumab is safe and effective to treat children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Effectiveness of omalizumab in children and adolescents with uncontrolled allergic asthma: a case series from Poland

Introduction

Omalizumab has been successfully used as a supplementary therapy to improve asthma control in children aged ≥ 6 years with moderate or severe persistent allergic asthma.

Aim

To evaluate effectiveness ofomalizumab in children and adolescents with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

Material and methods

Seventeen children and adolescents aged 8–16, treated with omalizumab from 2011 until now, were enrolled into the retrospective, open, uncontrolled, observational study. The effectiveness of therapy, asthma control, quality of life, exacerbation rate, corticosteroid use, were assessed after 16, 52 and 104 weeks of treatment and after omalizumab cessation.

Results

The response to treatment was assessed as excellent (9 patients) and good (6 patients), according to global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE). A statistically significant decrease in use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) was observed. The doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) decreased significantly (the mean dose of ICS converted to a dose of budesonide before treatment was 1503.53 μg/day versus 903.53 μg after discontinuation). The mean asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) value decreased from 2.10 to 0.84 points and the mean mini asthma quality of life questionnaire (miniAQLQ) outcome increased from 4.37 to 6.1 points. The mean number of exacerbations decreased from 5.59 to 0.53 per year.

Conclusions

Our results are supportive of the existing evidence that omalizumab therapy improves asthma control, reduces OCS and ICS use, decreases exacerbations in children and adolescents with severe/moderate uncontrolled allergic asthma.

Real-life long-term safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in Japanese pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma: A post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is approved as add-on therapy for pediatric asthma since 2013 in Japan, however, its data in clinical practice is limited. This post-marketing surveillance aimed to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of omalizumab in Japanese pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma in real-life setting.

METHODS

This 104-week, multicenter surveillance was conducted from September 2013 to May 2019 by central registration method. Patients with severe allergic asthma aged ≥6 and < 15 years at initiation of treatment who were first-time omalizumab users were included. The primary endpoints included incidence of adverse drug reactions and physician's Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The secondary endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events, adverse events and adverse drug reactions of special interest and asthma exacerbation-related events.

RESULTS

Of the 128 patients enrolled, 127 completed the surveillance and were included for safety and effectiveness analysis. Thirteen patients experienced 20 adverse drug reactions with an incidence rate of 10.2%. The most frequent adverse drug reactions were pyrexia (2.4%) and urticaria (1.6%). In total, adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in 60 (47.2%) and 30 patients (23.6%) respectively. Two patients experienced anaphylactic reaction and 1 patient experienced type 1 hypersensitivity. 77.2% had an effective response to omalizumab according to GETE at final assessment, and frequency of all asthma exacerbation-related events decreased in post-treatment versus pre-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term omalizumab treatment showed no new safety signals in pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma. The observed safety and effectiveness profile was consistent with previous studies.

Safety and effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of chronic urticaria in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Evidence on safety and effectiveness of omalizumab for treatment of chronic urticaria in pediatric patients is scarce and limited to case reports. In particular, drug survival of omalizumab has not yet been investigated, which is a key element in the evaluation of its clinical performance. The aim of this study was to investigate safety, effectiveness, and drug survival rates of omalizumab in a daily practice cohort of pediatric patients with chronic urticaria (CU).

METHODS

This is a multicenter study including all pediatric patients from an academic center (Wilhelmina Children's Hospital) and a general center (Diakonessenhuis Hospital) in the Netherlands, who started omalizumab treatment before the age of 18 years. Data on safety, effectiveness, time to discontinuation, and reasons for discontinuation of treatment were assessed. Drug survival of omalizumab was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients, who started treatment between January 2014 and January 2020, were included. Most patients (68.4%) used omalizumab without reporting any side effects and a complete or good response to treatment was achieved in 76.3% of patients. The 1- and 2-year drug survival rates were 62% and 50%, respectively, with well-controlled disease activity as the most frequent reason for discontinuation in 69.2% of patients, followed by ineffectiveness in 23.1% and side effects in 7.7% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates high safety and effectiveness of omalizumab treatment in pediatric patients with CU, which will aid clinical decision making and management of expectations when choosing omalizumab treatment for pediatric patients with CU.

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in children with moderate-to-severe asthma: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in children with moderate-to-severe asthma.Data sources: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs ) (inception to January 2020).Study selections: All RCTs which were conducted in childhood and adolescence with asthma and compared the efficacy or safety of omalizumab were adopted.

RESULTS

Three studies with four publications including 1380 pediatric patients met our criteria. For children with moderate-to-severe asthma, omalizumab decreased asthma exacerbations rate (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.58, p < 0.001) compared with placebo with no evidence of heterogeneity. Omalizumab reduced the rate of asthma exacerbations 0.58) with treatment period ≥30 weeks (p for heterogeneity = 0.03). Omalizumab treated patients had an excellent or good response rate of treatment effectiveness assessed by physicians (2.75, 2.45-3.09) and a bigger reduction in the dosage of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) at the end of follow-up. For children with severe asthma, omalizumab also reduced the likelihood of asthma exacerbations and increased the odd of treatment effectiveness rated as excellent or good. Patients receiving omalizumab had a lower incidence of severe adverse events (0.36, 0.22-0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggested that omalizumab had beneficial effects on moderate-to-severe asthma in children. Patients may benefit more from long-term use of omalizumab. In addition, omalizumab reduces the rate of serious adverse events requiring hospitalizations.

Efficacy of omalizumab in children, adolescents, and adults with severe allergic asthma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and call for new trials using current guidelines for assessment of severe asthma

Background

Omalizumab is approved for treating severe allergic asthma from age 6, but the definition of severe asthma including a systematic assessment to rule out difficult-to-treat asthma has changed since the drug was approved in 2003.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of two critical (exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment) and eight important clinical outcomes in children, adolescents and adults, and specifically searched papers for systematic assessment of severe asthma.

Results

Adults: seven studies (n = 2159) ascertaining exacerbation rate showing a 37% (95% CI 21–50) reduction in favor of omalizumab, larger than the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 25%. Only one open-label study (n = 82) was identified assessing the percentage of patients experiencing reduction of OCS-maintenance treatment showing a significantly greater decrease in the omalizumab group (− 45% vs. + 18.3%, p = 0.002). Children and adolescents: four studies (n = 1551) reported data on exacerbations (no meta-analysis conducted), showed overall improvements in exacerbation rate and some passed MCID. No OCS studies were identified. No included studies provided systematic assessment of severe asthma according to current guidelines.

Conclusions

Omalizumab provides clinically relevant improvements in exacerbation rate among children, adolescents, and adults and in OCS-reduction among adults. New studies incorporating a guideline-approached definition of severe asthma are warranted.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Childhood Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been an explosion of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe uncontrolled adult asthma. Studies have now been published in severe pediatric asthma. There are numerous questions that need to be answered in determining whether these modalities are appropriate and safe in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

This is a narrative review examining the latest pediatric literature on monoclonal antibodies, both approved and in the pipeline, for uncontrolled asthma. Presently, all of the biologics are positioned to treat patients with underlying type 2 high disease. Two monoclonal antibodies are approved for children 6 years of age and older, omalizumab and mepolizumab, with more likely approved in the near future. The effect of these agents in controlling severe pediatric asthma is promising. Data is limited to long-term efficacy and safety, and whether any agent has an effect on the natural history of asthma.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 - 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 - 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 - 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 -1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) -0.45 (95% CI -0.58 to -0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD -0.41 (95%CI -0.66 to -0.15)].

Treatment Benefit with Omalizumab in Children by Indicators of Asthma Severity

BACKGROUND

Greater severity in childhood asthma negatively impacts functioning and quality of life. Omalizumab is effective in children aged 6 years or older with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but predicting responsiveness in severe disease requires further study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess response to omalizumab treatment among children using indicators of asthma severity.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses of randomized placebo-controlled studies of omalizumab (Inner-City Anti-IgE Therapy for Asthma [ICATA], IA05, and Preventative Omalizumab or Step-up Therapy for Fall Exacerbations [PROSE]) stratified by body mass index, eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and baseline severity indicators (baseline percent predicted FEV₁, previous hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations). Poisson regression analysis examined exacerbation rate reductions for body mass index, biomarkers, and severity indicators.

RESULTS

Children aged 6 to 11 years in IA05 (N = 576; 56% white, 17% black, 26% other/missing), ICATA (N = 237; 55% black, 43% Hispanic), and PROSE (N = 342; 59% black, 35% Hispanic) were included. Trends indicative of greater exacerbation rate change ([omalizumab - placebo]/placebo) were observed for low baseline lung function (IA05 percent predicted FEV₁: <90%, 36% reduction, 95% CI, -53.3 to -13.5; ≥90%, 22% reduction, 95% CI, -52.1 to 27.5), previous hospitalizations (ICATA: 46% reduction with, 95% CI, -69.7 to -3.9; 24% reduction without, 95% CI, -48.1 to 10.3), frequent baseline exacerbations (IA05: ≥3, 42% reduction, 95% CI, -60.4 to -14.1; <3, 20% reduction, 95% CI, -45.2 to -15.9), and high baseline eosinophil count (IA05: ≥300 cells/μL, 39% reduction, 95% CI, -56.4 to -14.7; <300 cells/μL, 5% reduction, 95% CI, -40.6 to 52.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab reduces exacerbations in children with moderate to severe persistent allergic asthma, and may provide greater benefit in children with more severe asthma subtypes.

The use of biologic therapies for the management of pediatric asthma

With better understanding of the role of type 2 inflammation in allergic asthma, there has been progress made in the development of new biologic therapies targeting these specific pathways. This review will consider diagnostic criteria for using biologic therapies for pediatric asthma with special emphasis on populations that are likely to benefit the most from particular therapies. With the exception of the anti-immunoglobulin E, omalizumab, very few studies have been published on the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies in children, particularly anti-interleukin-5 (IL5) and anti-IL4/IL13 therapies. The review will highlight the scarcity of published data in pediatric-specific populations. In addition, we will consider the cost-effectiveness as well as potential long-term consequences of biologic therapies in pediatric asthma.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

New perspectives of childhood asthma treatment with biologics

Asthma is no longer considered as a single disease but rather as a syndrome corresponding to different entities and pathophysiologic pathways. A targeted strategy is part of personalized medicine which aims to better define each patient's phenotype and endotype so as to prescribe the most suitable treatment at an individual level. Omalizumab and, more recently, mepolizumab are the first biologics approved for children (6-18 years). Omalizumab is now widely used to treat severe allergic asthma in children and is highly effective for asthma exacerbations and asthma control with a good safety profile. Moreover, several other drugs-lebrikizumab, dupilumab, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab-are used or are being studied in both teenagers and adults and could benefit younger children in the near future. We hypothesize that defining the asthma phenotype/endotype regarding the type and intensity of inflammation, association with allergic or non-allergic comorbidities, and airway remodeling should contribute to the choice of a specific biologic. Pediatric specificities have to be addressed and validated by studies in children. Long-term effectiveness and particularly the impact on the natural history of asthma should also be investigated. Severe asthma in children is a complex disease, and patients have to be referred to a specialized pediatric asthma center to confirm diagnosis and initiate the best treatment strategy which could include biologics while taking into account their high cost.

Omalizumab in children with severe allergic disease: a case series

Background

Currently, severe allergic asthma and food allergy in children represent an important public health problem with medical, psychosocial and economic impacts. Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, approved for refractory allergic asthma and chronic urticaria. It has been widely used in clinical practice as add-on therapy in patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma. In recent years there has seen the emergence of an allergic epidemic with increasing food allergy, which represents the main cause of anaphylaxis in children. The standard of care for food allergy is strictly dietary allergen avoidance and emergency treatment, but recent clinical trials have suggested that omalizumab may have a role to play as an adjuvant to oral immunotherapy (OIT). We present a case series of patients treated at our institution with omalizumab for severe allergic asthma and food allergy.

Methods

Patients received omalizumab according to a standard reference nomogram after failing standard therapies. In children with comorbid severe food allergy, omalizumab was administered in conjunction with an oral immunotherapy protocol.

Results

Omalizumab was effective in controlling symptoms of allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, but not eosinophilic esophagitis, while aiding successful oral desensitization of comorbid severe food allergies.

Conclusions

Omalizumab appears to be an excellent therapeutic option in children with inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, with or without food allergy.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of childhood asthma

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E, a mediator involved in the clinical manifestations of allergic asthma. Evidence for its efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma is based primarily on studies in adolescents and adults. However, there is increasing evidence of its utility in children with allergic asthma aged 6-12 years. Areas covered: This article reviews efficacy, safety, and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in children aged 6-12 years in clinical trials and in studies in clinical practice. Pharmacoeconomic aspects of its use among this population and the positioning of omalizumab in pediatric asthma management guidelines are also discussed. Additionally, an algorithm for the management of poorly controlled severe pediatric asthma in children older than 6 years is proposed. Electronic databases, such as PubMed, were searched for terms Asthma and Omalizumab and for asthma management guidelines. Expert commentary: Add-on omalizumab is an effective maintenance therapy in children aged 6-12 years with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with medium-high inhaled corticosteroids doses and inhaled long-acting β2-agonists. Omalizumab appears safe in children in both clinical trials and real-life setting and may be cost-effective.

Omalizumab effectiveness in patients with severe allergic asthma according to blood eosinophil count: the STELLAIR study

Omalizumab is a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody used to treat severe allergic asthma (SAA). The aim of the STELLAIR study was to determine the importance of pre-treatment blood eosinophil count as a predictive measure for response to omalizumab.

This retrospective real-life study was conducted in France between December 2015 and September 2016 using medical records of SAA omalizumab-treated patients. Response to omalizumab was assessed by three criteria: physician evaluation, reduction of ≥40% in annual exacerbation rate and a combination of both. Response rate was calculated according to blood eosinophil count measured in the year prior to omalizumab initiation.

872 SAA omalizumab-treated patients were included by 78 physicians (723 adults (age ≥18 years) and 149 minors (age 6–17 years)). Blood eosinophil count was ≥300 cells·µL⁻¹ in 52.1% of adults and 73.8% of minors. By physician evaluation, 67.2% of adults and 77.2% of minors were responders and 71.1% adults and 78.5% minors had a ≥40% reduction in the exacerbation rate. In adults, the response rate for combined criteria was 58.4% (95% CI 53.2–63.4%) for blood eosinophils ≥300 cells·µL⁻¹ (n=377) and 58.1% (95% CI 52.7–63.4%) for blood eosinophils <300 cells·µL⁻¹ (n=346).

This study shows that a large proportion of patients with SAA have a blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL⁻¹, and suggests that omalizumab effectiveness is similar in “high” and “low” eosinophil subgroups.

Omalizumab is a treatment option for severe allergic asthma irrespective of blood eosinophil counthttp://ow.ly/7tQh30iXNTW

The pediatric asthma yardstick: Practical recommendations for a sustained step-up in asthma therapy for children with inadequately controlled asthma

Current asthma guidelines recommend a control-based approach to management involving assessment of impairment and risk followed by implementation of treatment strategies individualized according to the patient's needs and preferences. However, for children with asthma, achieving control can be elusive. Although tools are available to help children (and families) track and manage day-to-day symptoms, when and how to implement a longer-term step-up in care is less clear. Furthermore, treatment is challenged by the 3 age groups of childhood-adolescence (12-18 years old), school age (6-11 years old), and young children (≤5 years old)-and what works for 1 age group might not be the best approach for another. The Pediatric Asthma Yardstick provides an in-depth assessment of when and how to step-up therapy for the child with not well or poorly controlled asthma. Development of this tool follows others in the Yardstick series, presenting patient profiles and step-up strategies based on current guidance documents, but modified according to newer data and the authors' combined clinical experience. The objective is to provide clinicians who treat children with asthma practical and clinically relevant recommendations for each step-up and each intervention, with the intent of helping practitioners better treat their pediatric patients with asthma, particularly those who do not always respond to recommended therapies.

Moving toward consensus on diagnosis and management of severe asthma in children

Children with severe asthma continue to experience symptoms despite long-term treatment with high doses of corticosteroids. Moreover, the heterogeneous nature of asthma and the presence of several phenotypes have limited our ability to develop an optimized management strategy for these patients. Adequate management of severe asthma in children necessitates a detailed understanding of what makes asthma difficult to control, knowledge of the causal factors, review of diagnosis for accurate identification of pediatric patients with severe asthma and a precise definition of the phenotypes to be able to better target the therapy. Advancement in all these aspects is likely to improve childhood asthma treatment in the future. Although our understanding of severe pediatric asthma has grown in recent years, there remains a lack of consensus and clarity around critical aspects of this condition. This review attempts to present a harmonized view on the definition of severe asthma in the pediatric age group, identification of phenotypes and diagnosis, the inflammatory cascade, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment strategies, considerations for follow-up and referral to specialists, and disease prevention strategies.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Omalizumab in children with uncontrolled allergic asthma: Review of clinical trial and real-world experience

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood. Allergen sensitization and high frequencies of comorbid allergic diseases are characteristic of severe asthma in children. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE mAb, is the first targeted biologic therapeutic approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma (AA) that remains uncontrolled despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medications. Since its initial licensing for use in adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older, the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of omalizumab have been demonstrated in several published clinical trials in children aged 6 to less than 12 years with moderate-to-severe AA. These studies supported the approval of the pediatric indication (use in children aged ≥6 years) by the European Medicines Agency in 2009 and the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016. After this most recent change in licensing, we review the outcomes from clinical trials in children with persistent AA receiving omalizumab therapy and observational studies from the past 7 years of clinical experience in Europe. Data sources were identified by using PubMed in 2016. Guidelines and management recommendations and materials from the recent US Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting are also reviewed.

dIvergEnt: How IgE Axis Contributes to the Continuum of Allergic Asthma and Anti-IgE Therapies

Asthma is an airway disease characterised by chronic inflammation with intermittent or permanent symptoms including wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough, which vary in terms of their occurrence, frequency, and intensity. The most common associated feature in the airways of patients with asthma is airway inflammation. In recent decades, efforts have been made to characterise the heterogeneous clinical nature of asthma. The interest in improving the definitions of asthma phenotypes and endotypes is growing, although these classifications do not always correlate with prognosis nor are always appropriate therapeutic approaches. Attempts have been made to identify the most relevant molecular and cellular biomarkers underlying the immunopathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. For almost 50 years, immunoglobulin E (IgE) has been identified as a central factor in allergic asthma, due to its allergen-specific nature. Many of the mechanisms of the inflammatory cascade underlying allergic asthma have already been elucidated, and IgE has been shown to play a fundamental role in the triggering, development, and chronicity of the inflammatory responses within the disease. Blocking IgE with monoclonal antibodies such as omalizumab have demonstrated their efficacy, effectiveness, and safety in treating allergic asthma. A better understanding of the multiple contributions of IgE to the inflammatory continuum of asthma could contribute to the development of novel therapeutic strategies for the disease.

Long-term safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of omalizumab in children with severe uncontrolled asthma

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is effective and well-tolerated in children with moderate to severe allergic asthma. However, the effects of long-term treatment with omalizumab in this population haven't been well investigated. The objective of this study is to evaluate the long-term safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of omalizumab in children with uncontrolled severe asthma.

METHODS

Thirty-eight Japanese children (aged 7-16 years) who completed the 24-week treatment core study were included in an uncontrolled extension study, in which treatment with omalizumab continued until the pediatric indication was approved in Japan (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01328886).

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (92.1%) completed the extension study. The median exposure throughout the core and extension studies was 116.6 weeks (range, 46.9-151.1 weeks). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, influenza, upper respiratory tract infection, and asthma. Serious adverse events developed in 10 patients (26.3%), but resolved completely with additional treatments. Incidence of adverse events didn't increase with extended exposure with omalizumab. Twenty-nine patients (76.3%) achieved completely- or well-controlled asthma compared with 9 patients (23.7%) at the start of the extension study. QOL scores, the rates (per year) of hospitalizations and ER visits were significantly improved compared with the baseline of the core study [39.0 vs 48.0 (median), p < 0.001 for QOL, 1.33 vs 0.16, p < 0.001 for hospitalization, 0.68 vs 0.15, p = 0.002 for ER visits]. Remarkably, the mean total IgE level showed a decreasing trend while exposure to omalizumab remained at steady-state.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with omalizumab is well-tolerated and effective in children with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. No new safety findings were identified.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy of omalizumab for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a subcutaneously administrated monoclonal anti-IgE antibody indicated in adults, adolescents and children 6 years of age and older with moderate to severe allergic asthma uncontrolled by conventional pharmacological treatments and sensitization to at least one perennial allergen. Area covered: This drug evaluation summarizes published data on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of omalizumab, on clinical efficacy and safety, including real-world evidence, and provides a medico-economic evaluation of the drug. Expert opinion: Omalizumab represents an efficient therapeutic option for the management of patients with uncontrolled moderate/severe allergic asthma. It provides a significant reduction in the asthma exacerbation rate with a steroid-sparing effect, an improvement in quality of life in adults and adolescents, despite a lack of evidence about its efficacy specifically in severe allergic asthma. Clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy in the pediatric population but further real-life evidence is expected to better characterize long-term effects in this population. There is still some debate about the optimal treatment duration but, to date, it is recommended not to stop the treatment as cessation has resulted in symptom recurrence. Omalizumab is an expensive treatment, but a key therapeutic option when used for uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Evaluation of long-term safety and efficacy of omalizumab in elderly patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma management in elderly patients may be difficult because of increased comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, physiologic changes that occur with aging, incorrect use of inhaler devices, and poor adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab in elderly (aged ≥65 years) patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

METHODS

The efficiency and adverse effects of omalizumab treatment were evaluated based on data extracted from medical records. Patients were evaluated monthly for efficacy and adverse reactions. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by level of asthma symptom control, using the Global Initiative for Asthma guideline.

RESULTS

Nineteen consecutive elderly patients with asthma (female to male ratio, 14:5) formed our cohort. The mean (SD) age, disease duration, and total IgE level were 69.3 (5.8) years, 19.4 (8.6) years, and 299.1 (197.2) IU/mL, respectively. The mean (SD) duration of omalizumab treatment was 35.6 (17.8) months (range, 9-66 months). All the patients had at least 1 perennial inhalant allergen sensitivity and had uncontrolled allergic asthma. Elderly patients experienced no significantly important adverse reaction considered to be related to omalizumab treatment. Only 1 patient had a local adverse reaction and 1 had myalgia that was considered to be drug related. After omalizumab treatment, asthma symptoms were well controlled in 9 patients (47.4%) and partly controlled in 8 patients (42.1%). Two of the patients (10.5%) still had uncontrolled asthma.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that omalizumab is a well-tolerated and effective therapy for elderly patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Impact of omalizumab on medical cost of childhood asthma in Japan

Omalizumab is effective in children with severe asthma, but its impact on medical cost in Japan is not clear. We evaluated the impact of omalizumab on medical cost by comparing the pre- vs post-omalizumab-initiation medical costs of 12 children with severe asthma who received omalizumab for 2 years, and calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for omalizumab therapy. Health outcome was measured as hospital-free days (HFD). The median total medical costs and medication fee per patient increased significantly after omalizumab initiation because of the high cost of omalizumab. The median hospitalization fee per patient, however, decreased significantly after omalizumab initiation due to reduction in hospitalization. Omalizumab led to an estimated increase of 40.8 HFD per omalizumab responder patient per 2 years. The cost was JPY 20 868 per additional HFD. Omalizumab can therefore reduce hospitalization cost in children with severe asthma in Japan.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

[Consensus-based approach for severe paediatric asthma in routine clinical practice]

INTRODUCTION

Accurate identification of paediatric patients with severe asthma is essential for an adequate management of the disease. However, criteria for defining severe asthma and recommendations for control vary among different guidelines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online survey was conducted to explore expert opinions about the definition and management of severe paediatric asthma. To reach a consensus agreement, a modified Delphi technique was used, and practice guidelines were prepared after the analysis of the results.

RESULTS

Eleven paediatric chest disease physicians and allergy specialists with wide expertise in severe asthma responded to the survey. Consensus was reached in 50 out of 65 questions (76.92%). It was considered that a patient has severe asthma if during the previous year they have required 2 or more cycles of oral steroids, required daily treatment with medium doses of inhaled corticosteroids (with other controller medication) or high doses (with or without other controller medication), did not respond to optimised conventional treatment, or if the disease threatened the life of the patient or seriously impairs their quality of life. The definition of severe asthma may also include patients who justifiably use health resources on a regular basis, or have psychosocial or environmental factors impeding control. For monitoring, the use of questionnaires designed specifically for paediatric population, such as CAN or ACT, is recommended. As regards treatment, the use of omalizumab should be considered prior to the use of oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides consensus recommendations that may be useful in the management of severe paediatric asthma.

Omalizumab in Japanese children with severe allergic asthma uncontrolled with standard therapy

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab has demonstrated clinical benefits in children with moderate to severe allergic asthma. However, no studies have been performed in Japanese asthmatic children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy including free IgE suppression and safety of omalizumab in Japanese children with severe allergic asthma. The primary objective was to examine whether omalizumab decreases serum free IgE levels to less than 25 ng/ml (target level of suppression).

METHODS

Thirty-eight Japanese children (6-15 years) with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (>200 μg/day fluticasone propionate or equivalent) and two or more controller therapies received add-on treatment with omalizumab in a 24-week, multicenter, uncontrolled, open-label study.

RESULTS

The geometric mean serum free IgE level at 24 weeks was 15.6 ng/mL. Compared with baseline, total asthma symptom scores, daily activity scores and nocturnal sleep scores at 24 weeks were significantly improved. The rates of asthma exacerbation and hospitalization due to asthma were reduced by 69.2% and 78.2%, respectively (p < 0.001), versus baseline. Quality-of-life scores were also significantly improved (p < 0.001). In addition, 11 (28.9%) patients reduced the dose of any asthma controller medications. Thirty-six (94.7%) patients experienced at least one adverse event during the treatment period. All adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and no new safety concerns were detected. No patients discontinued the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japanese children with severe allergic asthma, omalizumab decreased free IgE levels to less than 25 ng/mL. Omalizumab improved asthma control and was well-tolerated, as well.

Omalizumab therapy for children and adolescents with severe allergic asthma

Omalizumab, a therapeutic humanized monoclonal antibody specific for human IgE, was introduced in clinical practice more than a decade ago as an add-on therapy for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in patients aged ≥12 years. Omalizumab has been demonstrated to be effective in adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma, with an excellent safety profile. In simple terms, omalizumab works by inhibiting the allergic cascade, that is, by neutralization of the circulating free IgE. This leads to reduction in the quantity of cell-bound IgE, downregulation of high-affinity IgE receptors, and, eventually, prevention of mediator release from effector cells. Evidence is far less abundant on the role of omalizumab in pediatric asthma. Although efficacy and safety of omalizumab in children and adolescents with uncontrolled, persistent allergic asthma has been recognized as well, further studies are needed to clarify a number of open questions in this specific patient population.

Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 (IL-5), the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which in turn causes airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested these agents may have a role in reducing exacerbations and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There are no recommendations for the use of mepolizumab in adults or children in the recent update of the BTS/SIGN guidelines (BTS/SIGN 2014).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of mepolizumab with placebo on exacerbations and HRQoL in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR) of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and the reference lists of included studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 and updated in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies on 1707 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included children (over 12 years of age), but they did not report separate findings for the adolescents. Seven studies involved intravenous mepolizumab alone; one included a subcutaneous arm. There was heterogeneity in the severity and clinical pattern of asthma among the participants in the eight studies, varying from mild to moderate atopic asthma, to persistent asthma and eosinophilic asthma with recurrent exacerbations. Selection bias was a concern in several of the studies included in this review.Four trials compared intravenous mepolizumab to placebo in relation to HRQoL. Two studies measured scores from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which showed a non-significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 682), in the direction favouring mepolizumab. The third study used the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and found a significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.15 to 9.65; participants = 576), which indicated a clinically important benefit favouring mepolizumab. A fourth study noted that there was no significant difference but did not provide any data. The two studies in people with eosinophilic asthma showed a reduction in clinically significant exacerbation rates (Risk Ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; participants = 690). However, an analysis of four studies that were not confined to people with eosinophilic asthma indicated considerable heterogeneity and no significant difference in people with one or more exacerbations between mepolizumab and placebo using a random-effects model (Risk Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31; participants = 468; I(2) = 59%).The analysis of serious adverse events indicated a significant difference favouring mepolizumab (Risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; participants = 1441; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%). It was not possible to combine the results for adverse events, and we deemed the quality of this evidence to be low.A single study compared subcutaneous mepolizumab to placebo in 385 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma and found an improvement in HRQoL scores and a reduction in asthma exacerbations, including exacerbations requiring admission to hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from this review with respect to the role of mepolizumab in patients with asthma. Our confidence in the results of this review are limited by the fact that the intravenous route is not currently licensed for mepolizumab, and the evidence for the currently licenced subcutaneous route is limited to a single study in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma.The currently available studies provide evidence that mepolizumab can lead to an improvement in health-related quality of life scores and reduce asthma exacerbations in people with severe eosinophilic asthma.Further research is needed to clarify which subgroups of patients with asthma could potentially benefit from this treatment. Dosage, ideal dosing regimens and duration of treatment need to be clarified, as the studies included in this review differed in their protocols. There are no studies reporting results from children, so we cannot comment on treatment for this age group. At the present time, larger studies using licenced treatment regimens are required to establish the role of mepolizumab in the treatment of severe asthma.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently, limited information is available to clinicians regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab treatment for allergic asthma. In this report, we aimed to (i) systematically review the evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma, and to (ii) discuss the cost-effectiveness evidence published for omalizumab in this patient population. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs; ≥52 weeks) was performed, and six studies met our final inclusion criteria (n = 2,749). Omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in quality of life and the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness. Omalizumab also allowed patients to completely withdraw from inhaled corticosteroid therapy and did not increase the overall incidence of adverse events. However, there was insufficient evidence that omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, and the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab varied across studies. Our data indicated that omalizumab use for at least 52 weeks in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma was accompanied by an acceptable safety profile, but it lacked effect on the asthma exacerbations. Use of omalizumab was associated with a higher cost than conventional therapy, but these increases may be cost-effective if the medication is used in patients with severe allergic asthma.

Omalizumab: a review of its use in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma

Omalizumab (Xolair(®)) is a subcutaneously administered monoclonal antibody that targets circulating free IgE and prevents its interaction with the high-affinity IgE receptor (FCεRI), thereby interrupting the allergic cascade. In the EU, the drug is approved as add-on therapy in adults, adolescents and children aged ≥6 years with severe persistent allergic asthma. In well designed clinical trials, add-on omalizumab significantly reduced the asthma exacerbation rate (primary endpoint) compared with placebo in adults, adolescents and children with severe persistent allergic asthma. Furthermore, add-on omalizumab reduced the need for inhaled corticosteroids in adults and adolescents, and improved asthma control and symptoms, and asthma-related quality of life in all age groups. The efficacy of omalizumab was also demonstrated in the real-world setting, with add-on therapy leading to reduced rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits and unscheduled doctor's visits, as well as improvements in asthma symptom scores and the physician's overall assessment of treatment response. More data are needed to determine the optimum duration of treatment, and currently the duration is at the discretion of the treating physician. Omalizumab was generally well tolerated in clinical trials; the most common adverse event was transient injection-site reactions. In cost-utility analyses modelled over a life-time horizon, add-on omalizumab was cost effective compared with standard therapy, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios falling within generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Thus, in difficult-to-treat patients with severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab provides a valuable treatment option.

Omalizumab for asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a respiratory (airway) condition that affects an estimated 300 million people worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). It is called an 'anti-IgE' drug. IgE is an immune mediator involved in clinical manifestations of asthma. A recent update of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2013 recommends omalizumab for use as add-on therapy in adults and children over six years of age with inadequately controlled severe persistent allergic IgE-mediated asthma who require continuous or frequent treatment with oral corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of omalizumab versus placebo or conventional therapy for asthma in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials for potentially relevant studies. The most recent search was performed in June 2013. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and searched online trial registries and drug company websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials examining anti-IgE administered in any manner for any duration. Trials with co-interventions were included, as long as they were the same in each arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted and entered data. Three modes of administration were identified from the published literature: inhaled, intravenous and subcutaneous injection. The main focus of the updated review is subcutaneous administration, as this route is currently used in clinical practice. Subgroup analysis was performed by asthma severity. Data were extracted from published and unpublished sources.

MAIN RESULTS

In all, 25 trials were included in the review, including 11 new studies since the last update, for a total of 19 that considered the efficacy of subcutaneous anti-IgE treatment as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids.For participants with moderate or severe asthma who were receiving background inhaled corticosteroid steroid (ICS) therapy, a significant advantage favoured subcutaneous omalizumab with regard to experiencing an asthma exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.60; ten studies, 3261 participants). This represents an absolute reduction from 26% for participants suffering an exacerbation on placebo to 16% on omalizumab, over 16 to 60 weeks. A significant benefit was noted for subcutaneous omalizumab versus placebo with regard to reducing hospitalisations (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; four studies, 1824 participants), representing an absolute reduction in risk from 3% with placebo to 0.5% with omalizumab over 28 to 60 weeks. No separate data on hospitalisations were available for the severe asthma subgroup, and all of these data were reported for participants with the diagnosis of moderate to severe asthma. Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab were also significantly more likely to be able to withdraw their ICS completely than those treated with placebo (OR 2.50, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.13), and a small but statistically significant reduction in daily inhaled steroid dose was reported for omalizumab-treated participants compared with those given placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -118 mcg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent per day, 95% CI -154 to -84). However, no significant difference between omalizumab and placebo treatment groups was seen in the number of participants who were able to withdraw from oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.63).Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids required a small but significant reduction in rescue beta2-agonist medication compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.39 puffs per day, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.24; nine studies, 3524 participants). This benefit was observed in both the moderate to severe (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31) and severe (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10) asthma subgroups on a background therapy of inhaled corticosteroids; however, no significant difference between subcutaneous omalizumab and placebo was noted for this outcome in participants with severe asthma who were receiving a background therapy of inhaled plus oral corticosteroids. Significantly fewer serious adverse events were reported in participants assigned to subcutaneous omalizumab than in those receiving placebo (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 15 studies, 5713 participants), but more injection site reactions were observed (from 5.6% with placebo to 9.1% with omalizumab).To reflect current clinical practice, discussion of the results is limited to subcutaneous use, and trials involving intravenous and inhaled routes have been archived.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab was effective in reducing asthma exacerbations and hospitalisations as an adjunctive therapy to inhaled steroids and during steroid tapering phases of clinical trials. Omalizumab was significantly more effective than placebo in increasing the numbers of participants who were able to reduce or withdraw their inhaled steroids. Omalizumab was generally well tolerated, although more injection site reactions were seen with omalizumab. Further assessment in paediatric populations is necessary, as is direct double-dummy comparison with ICS. Although subgroup analyses suggest that participants receiving prednisolone had better asthma control when they received omalizumab, it remains to be tested prospectively whether the addition of omalizumab has a prednisolone-sparing effect. It is also not clear whether there is a threshold level of baseline serum IgE for optimum efficacy of omalizumab. Given the high cost of the drug, identification of biomarkers predictive of response is of major importance for future research.