Exacerbations of Severe Asthma While on Anti-IL-5 Biologics

Experts' Opinion on diagnosis and management of Severe Asthma, an Indian/Low and middle-income countries (LMIC) Perspective

Objective In this document, 9 Indian experts have evaluated the factors specific to LMICs when it came to Severe Asthma (SA) diagnosis, evaluation, biologic selection, non-biologic treatment options and follow-up.Data Sources A search was performed using 50 keywords., focusing on the Indian/LMICs perspective, in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The key areas of the search were focused on diagnosis, phenoendotyping, non-biological therapies, selecting a biologic, assessment of treatment response and management of exacerbation.Study Selections The initial search revealed 1826 articles, from these case reports, observational studies, cohort studies, non-English language papers etc were excluded and we short-listed 20 articles for each area. 5 relevant papers were selected by the experts for review.Results In LMICs SA patients may be referred to the specialist for evaluation a little late for Phenoendotyping of SA. While biologic therapy is now a standard of care, pulmonologists in LMICs may not have access to all the investigations to phenoendotype SA patients like Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), Skin prick test (SPT) etc., but phenotyping of SA patients can also be done with simple blood investigations, eosinophil count and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). Choosing a biologic in the overlapping phenotype of SA and ACO patients is also a challenge in the LMICs.Conclusion Given the limitations of LMIC, it is important to select the right patient and explain the potential benefits of biological therapy. Non-biologic add-on therapies can be attempted in a resource-limited setting where biological therapy is not available/feasible for patients.

Anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5R biologics for severe asthma. Are there any differences in their effects?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective multicentre study is to describe the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα therapies and to compare their effectiveness.

METHODS

We collected and analysed results separately for anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα therapies from January 2016 until December 2021 in multidisciplinary severe asthma units. We collected demographic and clinical data, treatment with previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents, and comorbidities. We compared the number of exacerbations and admissions to the hospital, daily oral corticosteroid intake, pulmonary function tests, and Asthma Control Test scores before and after 12 months of therapy. 261 patients were included: 176 patients in the anti-IL-5 group and 85 in the anti-IL-5Rα group.

RESULTS

Both groups led to statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbations, hospital admissions, and visits to the Emergency Room. Although both groups showed a significant reduction in blood eosinophiliccount, we found a difference, although not significant, in the magnitude of reduction as benralizumab was able to decrease eosinophil counts to zero. Patients in the anti-IL-5 group achieved higher ACT scores after treatment, although this improvement was seen in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα biologics have shown similar effectiveness despite having different mechanisms of action. The anti-IL-5 group appeared to be better than benralizumab at improving ACT scores and FEV1/FVC and at reducing the number of inhalers. Although these differences were not statistically significant, it is not clear whether they may have clinical relevance and they might highlight the need for further head-to-head studies comparing these treatments.

Eosinophils-from cradle to grave: An EAACI task force paper on new molecular insights and clinical functions of eosinophils and the clinical effects of targeted eosinophil depletion

Over the past years, eosinophils have become a focus of scientific interest, especially in the context of their recently uncovered functions (e.g. antiviral, anti-inflammatory, regulatory). These versatile cells display both beneficial and detrimental activities under various physiological and pathological conditions. Eosinophils are involved in the pathogenesis of many diseases which can be classified into primary (clonal) and secondary (reactive) disorders and idiopathic (hyper)eosinophilic syndromes. Depending on the biological specimen, the eosinophil count in different body compartments may serve as a biomarker reflecting the underlying pathophysiology and/or activity of distinct diseases and as a therapy-driving (predictive) and monitoring tool. Personalized selection of an appropriate therapeutic strategy directly or indirectly targeting the increased number and/or activity of eosinophils should be based on the understanding of eosinophil homeostasis including their interactions with other immune and non-immune cells within different body compartments. Hence, restoring as well as maintaining homeostasis within an individual's eosinophil pool is a goal of both specific and non-specific eosinophil-targeting therapies. Despite the overall favourable safety profile of the currently available anti-eosinophil biologics, the effect of eosinophil depletion should be monitored from the perspective of possible unwanted consequences.

Advances in the pharmacotherapeutic management of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a rare but potentially lethal systemic vasculitis. Only a few prospective therapeutic trials had been conducted in EGPA, and its treatment was mostly adapted from other vasculitides. Monoclonal antibodies inhibiting various pathways (e.g. interleukin-5 [IL5] or B cells) have been investigated.

AREAS COVERED

Published studies on treatments for EGPA using glucocorticoids, conventional immunosuppressants (such as cyclophosphamide or azathioprine), antiIL5 pathway agents (mepolizumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for EGPA; benralizumab and reslizumab), other and future possible treatments [PubMed search, 01/1990-02/2023] are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

With advances made in the pharmacotherapeutic management of EGPA, the prognosis has gradually shifted from a potentially fatal to a more chronic course, for which more targeted and safer treatments can be used. However, glucocorticoids remain central. Rituximab is now a possible alternative to cyclophosphamide for induction, although data are still limited. AntiIL5 pathway therapies have been shown to be safe and effective in relapsing patients with EGPA, who often experience asthma and/or ears, nose, and throat (ENT) manifestations, but long-term data are needed. Treatment strategies need to be optimized based on individual patient characteristics, likely with sequential, combination-based approaches, while topical airway treatments should not be forgotten.

Airway autoimmunity, asthma exacerbations, and response to biologics

Biologic therapies in asthma are indicated in severe disease, and they are directed against specific inflammatory modulators that contribute to pathogenesis and severity. Currently approved biologics target T2 cytokines (IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TLSP) and have demonstrated efficacy in clinical outcomes such as exacerbation rate and oral corticosteroid dose reductions, blood and airway eosinophil depletion, and lung function improvement. However, a proportion of these patients may show inadequate responses to biologics, with either initial lack of improvement or clinical and functional worsening after an optimal initial response. Exacerbations while on a biologic may be due to several reasons, including imprecise identification of the dominant effector pathway contributing to severity, additional inflammatory pathways that are not targeted by the biologic, inaccuracies of the biomarker used to guide therapy, inadequate dosing schedules, intercurrent airway infections, anti-drug neutralizing antibodies, and a novel phenomenon of autoimmune responses in the airways interfering with the effectiveness of the monoclonal antibodies. This review, illustrated using case scenarios, describes the underpinnings of airway autoimmune responses in driving exacerbations while patients are being treated with biologics, device a strategy to evaluate such exacerbations, an algorithm to switch between biologics, and perhaps to consider two biologics concurrently.

Effects of Therapeutic Antibodies on Gene and Protein Signatures in Asthma Patients: A Comparative Systematic Review

Several biologic therapies that target inflammatory modulators are now used for treating patients with uncontrolled, severe asthma. Knowledge about how this type of treatment modifies the molecular milieu is rapidly increasing. Thus, this systematic review aimed to compile the reported effects of therapeutic antibodies on the transcriptome or proteome of asthma patients. Studies of asthmatic patients under biological treatment describing transcriptomic or proteomic changes upon treatment were included. Preclinical or single gene/protein studies were not considered. PubMed and Scopus search was performed in August and September 2021. Following PRISMA guidelines and GRADE recommendations, we selected 12 studies on gene or protein expression changes in patients treated with the antibodies currently approved by EMA and the FDA. All studies were at low risk of bias as per the RoB2 tool. Different gene clusters have been identified to change upon omalizumab treatment, found a reduction in eosinophil-associated gene signatures after benralizumab treatment, and protein profiles were different in patients treated with mepolizumab and in those treated with benralizumab. The main potential biomarkers proposed by the selected studies are shown. These results may contribute to discovering biomarkers of response and selecting the best therapy for each patient.

Utilizing Predictive Inflammatory Markers for Guiding the Use of Biologicals in Severe Asthma

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction. Up to ten percent of asthmatics have severe asthma, and many remain uncontrolled despite optimal medical management. With our increased understanding of the heterogeneity of asthma and its complex pathophysiology, several biomarkers have been developed and in the recent past, several biologic therapies for severe asthma have been developed and are now in widespread use. Although these biological agents have shown great benefit in treating severe asthma, not all patients respond equally well, and some do not derive any benefit. As much of the current literature of these medications have not assessed biomarkers or have used different cutoffs, it is often challenging to decide the best medication for an individual patient. Here, we review common asthma subtypes, current available biologic therapies for asthma, the clinical application of currently available type 2 biomarkers, as well as summarizing the evidence on how patient characteristics and biomarkers can help with choosing the optimal biologic for a patient that has the highest likelihood of success.

Immune responses and exacerbations in severe asthma

Asthma as a clinical entity manifests with a broad spectrum of disease severity. Unlike milder asthma, severe disease is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, the current standard of care. Transcriptomic data, along with patient characteristics and response to biologics show that though Type 2 (T2) immune response remains an integral feature of asthma, additional molecular and immunologic factors may play important roles in pathogenesis. Mechanisms of T2 development, cellular sources of T2 cytokines and their relationship to additional immune pathways concurrently activated may distinguish several different subphenotypes, and perhaps endotypes of asthma, with differential response to non-specific and targeted anti-inflammatory therapies. Recent data have also associated non-T2 cytokines derived from T cells, particularly IFN-γ, and epithelial mediators with severe asthma. These topics and their relationships to acute asthma exacerbations are discussed in this review.

Comparison of Sinonasal Histopathological Changes in Biological Treatment of Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapies such as mepolizumab and benralizumab are currently utilised in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma, and are emerging in the management of eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (eCRS). These biologics inhibit the interaction of IL-5 with its receptor, thus impairing cytokine signalling and eosinophil inflammation. Mepolizumab does so by targeting IL-5, whereas benralizumab targets the α chain of the IL-5 receptor. This study compares the sinonasal tissue response to anti-IL-5 biologic therapies in patients with eCRS.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of adult eCRS patients who had completed at least 2 cycles of biologic therapy and underwent endoscopic sinus surgery as part of their management were included. Sinonasal mucosal tissue biopsies were obtained intraoperatively and assessed with structured histopathological examination. Comparisons of tissue histopathology outcomes following treatment with mepolizumab or benralizumab were performed.

RESULTS

18 patients (age 49.6 ± 14.2 years, 47% female, 100% co-morbid asthma) were included in this study, comprising 10 patients managed with mepolizumab and 8 patients managed with benralizumab. Even after mepolizumab, the tissue had predominantly eosinophilic inflammation compared to benralizumab (90% v 0%, p < 0.01), which demonstrated a greater lymphoplasmacytic inflammation (10% v 75%, χ²(2) = 14.53, p < 0.01). Compared with benralizumab, mepolizumab had increased tissue eosinophil count (100% v 37.5% >10 eosinophils/HPF, τ^b = -8.47, p < 0.001) and more severe subepithelial oedema (80% v 37.5% severe, τ^b = -2.37, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Tissue histopathologic outcomes reflect the differing mechanism of action of mepolizumab and benralizumab in eCRS. Further analysis at the tissue level will provide further information to guide application of mAbs in type 2 inflammatory diseases.

Injection site vaccinology of a recombinant vaccinia-based vector reveals diverse innate immune signatures

Poxvirus systems have been extensively used as vaccine vectors. Herein a RNA-Seq analysis of intramuscular injection sites provided detailed insights into host innate immune responses, as well as expression of vector and recombinant immunogen genes, after vaccination with a new multiplication defective, vaccinia-based vector, Sementis Copenhagen Vector. Chikungunya and Zika virus immunogen mRNA and protein expression was associated with necrosing skeletal muscle cells surrounded by mixed cellular infiltrates. The multiple adjuvant signatures at 12 hours post-vaccination were dominated by TLR3, 4 and 9, STING, MAVS, PKR and the inflammasome. Th1 cytokine signatures were dominated by IFNγ, TNF and IL1β, and chemokine signatures by CCL5 and CXCL12. Multiple signatures associated with dendritic cell stimulation were evident. By day seven, vaccine transcripts were absent, and cell death, neutrophil, macrophage and inflammation annotations had abated. No compelling arthritis signatures were identified. Such injection site vaccinology approaches should inform refinements in poxvirus-based vector design.

Poxvirus vector systems have been widely developed for vaccine applications. Despite considerable progress, so far only one recombinant poxvirus vectored vaccine has to date been licensed for human use, with ongoing efforts seeking to enhance immunogenicity whilst minimizing reactogenicity. The latter two characteristics are often determined by early post-vaccination events at the injection site. We therefore undertook an injection site vaccinology approach to analyzing gene expression at the vaccination site after intramuscular inoculation with a recombinant, multiplication defective, vaccinia-based vaccine. This provided detailed insights into inter alia expression of vector-encoded immunoregulatory genes, as well as host innate and adaptive immune responses. We propose that such injection site vaccinology can inform rational vaccine vector design, and we discuss how the information and approach elucidated herein might be used to improve immunogenicity and limit reactogenicity of poxvirus-based vaccine vector systems.