Population-based efficacy modeling of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with standard therapy

Population-Based Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Omalizumab in Pediatric Patients with Moderate to Severe Persistent Inadequately Controlled Allergic Asthma

Omalizumab is the first approved anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) agent for the treatment of moderate to severe persistent inadequately controlled allergic asthma in adults and adolescents (≥ 12 years old). In 2016, it was approved in pediatric patients (6-11 years old). The objective of this study was to quantitatively characterize the relationship between serum free IgE and pulmonary function (as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]) in pediatrics using a population-based pharmacodynamic model. Data collected during the steroid-stable period (first 24 weeks) of an omalizumab trial with pediatric asthma patients (Study IA05) were used to build the pediatric IgE-FEV1 model. The previously developed population IgE-FEV1 model in adults/adolescents was adapted to characterize the FEV1 and IgE relationship in pediatrics with different magnitude and onset of response. The pediatric IgE-FEV1 model adequately characterized the IgE-FEV1 relationship in pediatrics, particularly at the extremes of the observed body weights (i.e., ≤ 30 kg) and IgE values at screening (i.e., > 700 IU/mL). The estimated sigmoidal free IgE-FEV1 curves were similar in shape and maximum effect, but the estimated free IgE concentration leading to 50% maximum effect (IC50) in pediatric patients (39.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 24.3-63.9 ng/mL) was higher than estimated in adults (19.8, 95% CI 15.1-24.5 ng/mL). The model further confirmed that the current omalizumab dosing rationale based on the mean target free IgE level of 25 ng/ml was appropriate. The pediatric model can be used to predict population FEV1 response for omalizumab when combined with an omalizumab pharmacokinetic-IgE model.

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.

Dose-Exposure-Response Relationship of the Investigational Anti-Interleukin-13 Monoclonal Antibody Tralokinumab in Patients With Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma

Interleukin (IL)-13 is involved in the pathogenesis of some types of asthma. Tralokinumab is a human immunoglobulin G₄ monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to IL-13. Two placebo-controlled phase II studies (phase IIa, NCT00873860 and phase IIb, NCT01402986) have been conducted in which tralokinumab was administered subcutaneously. This investigation aimed to characterize tralokinumab's dose-exposure-response (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁ )) relationship in patients with asthma and to predict the most appropriate dose for phase III. An integrated population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling analysis was required for phase III dose selection, due to differing phase II patient populations, designs, and regimens. Analysis of combined datasets enabled the identification of tralokinumab's dose-exposure-FEV₁ response relationship in patients with asthma. Near-maximal FEV₁ increase was predicted at a dose of 300 mg SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W). This dose was chosen for tralokinumab in the phase III clinical development program for treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma.

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.

Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of QGE031 (ligelizumab) versus omalizumab and placebo in inhibiting allergen-induced early asthmatic responses

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is an established anti-IgE therapy for the treatment of allergic diseases that prevents IgE from binding to its receptor. QGE031 is an investigational anti-IgE antibody that binds IgE with higher affinity than omalizumab.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effects of QGE031 with those of omalizumab on clinical efficacy, IgE levels, and FcεRI expression in a clinical model of allergic asthma.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with mild allergic asthma were randomized to subcutaneous omalizumab, placebo, or QGE031 at 24, 72, or 240 mg every 2 weeks for 10 weeks in a double-blind, parallel-group multicenter study. Inhaled allergen challenges and skin tests were conducted before dosing and at weeks 6, 12, and 18, and blood was collected until 24 weeks after the first dose.

RESULTS

QGE031 elicited a concentration- and time-dependent change in the provocative concentration of allergen causing a 15% decrease in FEV1 (allergen PC15) that was maximal and approximately 3-fold greater than that of omalizumab (P = .10) and 16-fold greater than that of placebo (P = .0001) at week 12 in the 240-mg cohort. Skin responses reached 85% suppression at week 12 in the 240-mg cohort and were maximal at week 18. The top doses of QGE031 consistently suppressed skin test responses among subjects but had a variable effect on allergen PC15 (2-fold to 500-fold change). QGE031 was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

QGE031 has greater efficacy than omalizumab on inhaled and skin allergen responses in patients with mild allergic asthma. These data support the clinical development of QGE031 as a treatment of asthma.

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.

Asthma control in severe asthmatics under treatment with omalizumab: a cross-sectional observational study in Italy

Few data are available on the proportion of asthmatics achieving a good asthma control (according GINA guidelines) and on the level of airway inflammation during omalizumab treatment. The aim of this cross-sectional national observational study was to assess the level of control (according to GINA guidelines) achieved in a group of asthmatics on omalizumab treatment, and to characterize the factors that influence the lack of control. We studied 306 asthmatics under omalizumab treatment for a median of 32 months (range 4-120). The level of control according to GINA was good in 25.2%, partial in 47.1% and poor in 24.5% of patients (data were missing for the remaining 3.2%). Comparison between poorly controlled and partially or well controlled asthmatics showed a statistically significant higher prevalence of some comorbidities in the first group, namely obesity, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), aspirin intolerance and mental disorders (all p < 0.001). Similarly, asthmatics with at least one exacerbation in the last year showed a significantly higher prevalence of obesity, chronic rhinosinusitis, nasal polyps, GORD, and aspirin intolerance (all p < 0.05) than patients without exacerbations. When we selected patients without relevant comorbidities (upper airways disease, GORD, obesity, aspirin intolerance) and not currently smoking (N = 73), the percentage of well or partially controlled asthmatics was significantly higher than in patients with comorbidities (84.9% vs 71.1%, p = 0.02); the rate of asthmatics without exacerbations in the last year was also higher (73.6% vs 51.1%, p = 0.001). During omalizumab treatment, a high percentage of asthmatics obtain a good or partial control of asthma. Comorbidities are associated with the lack of asthma control and persistence of exacerbations.

Omalizumab in asthma: an update on recent developments

IgE is central to the pathophysiology of allergic asthma. Omalizumab, a humanized anti-IgE mAb, specifically binds free IgE and interrupts the allergic cascade by preventing binding of IgE with its high-affinity FcεRI receptors on mast cells, antigen-presenting cells, and other inflammatory cells. The clinical efficacy of omalizumab has been well documented in a number of clinical trials that involve adults, adolescents, and children with moderate-to-severe and severe allergic asthma. In these studies, omalizumab reduced exacerbations, asthma symptoms, inhaled corticosteroid and rescue medication use, and improved quality of life relative to placebo or best standard of care. Similar benefits have been reported in observational studies in "real-world" populations of patients. Results from recent pooled data from randomized clinical trials and from a large prospective cohort study provide reassurance about the long-term safety of omalizumab. Omalizumab dosing is individualized according to body weight and serum-IgE level, and recent adjustments to the dosing algorithm in Europe have enabled more patients to be eligible for treatment. Ongoing and future research is investigating the optimal duration of therapy, accurate predictors of response to treatment, and efficacy in nonatopic asthma as well as other IgE-mediated conditions.