Real-World Multicenter Experience with Mepolizumab and Benralizumab in the Treatment of Uncontrolled Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Over 12 Months

Comparative Insights on IL-5 Targeting with Mepolizumab and Benralizumab: Enhancing EGPA Treatment Strategies

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a necrotizing vasculitis characterized by extravascular granulomas and eosinophilia in both blood and tissues. Eosinophils, which play a critical role in the pathophysiology of EGPA, require interleukin (IL)-5 for maturation in the bone marrow and migration to tissues. Glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants have been the cornerstone of treatment; however, their side effects have imposed a significant burden on many patients. Mepolizumab, an antibody that binds to and neutralizes IL-5, demonstrated efficacy in controlling disease activity in EGPA in the MIRRA trial conducted in 2017. In 2024, benralizumab, an IL-5 receptor alpha antagonist, was shown to be non-inferior to mepolizumab in efficacy against EGPA in the MANDARA trial. Both drugs were originally used for severe asthma and have benefited EGPA by reducing eosinophil counts. Due to differences in pharmacological structure and pharmacokinetics, the degree of eosinophil suppression varies between the two agents, and recent studies suggest that they may also affect inflammatory and homeostatic eosinophils differently. This review summarizes the latest insights into the pathophysiology of EGPA, highlights the similarities and differences between the two drugs, and discusses future treatment strategies for EGPA based on current clinical unmet needs, including drug selection.

Effectiveness of benralizumab in the Tokyo Asthma Study (TOAST): A real-world prospective interventional trial

BACKGROUND

Biologics are integral in the management of severe asthma. As the effectiveness of the anti-IL-5 receptor antibody benralizumab in Japan remains elusive, this study aimed to assess its real-world effectiveness in Japanese patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

This prospective, interventional, single-arm clinical trial was conducted across ten facilities in Japan between September 2020 and July 2022. Adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (peripheral blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells/μl) were enrolled and treated with benralizumab. The primary endpoint was the change in ACQ-5 score from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

Of 103 patients, 98 (mean age: 62.1 years, women: 55.1 %, regular oral corticosteroids [OCS] treatment: 20.4 %) were included in the analysis. From baseline to week 24, benralizumab significantly improved ACQ-5 (-0.67, 95 % CI: -0.94 to -0.39) and AQLQ (0.71, 95 % CI: 0.46 to 0.96) scores with an increase in FEV1 (87 ml, 95 % CI: 15-159 ml). The maintenance OCS dose and the percentage of OCS users decreased from 13.9 mg/day to 6.0 mg/day and from 20.4 % to 9.2 %, respectively. Multivariable analysis identified baseline blood eosinophil count (≥400 cells/μl) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (≥22 ppb) as independent predictors of therapeutic response to benralizumab. Benralizumab treatment was discontinued due to nonserious adverse events and patient choice in four and three patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting in Japan, patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab demonstrated substantial improvements in asthma control, quality of life, and respiratory function with reduced OCS usage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031190237).

Early Reduction of FeNO on Anti-IL5 Biologics Is Associated With Clinical Remission of Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe asthma, treatment with anti-interleukin-5 (IL-5) biologics can lead to a reduction in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in some patients. The clinical implications of varying FeNO responses to anti-IL-5 biologics remain unclear. This study aims to categorise patients based on their FeNO response to anti-IL-5 biologics and evaluate the association of these categories with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We used the Danish Severe Asthma Register (DSAR) to identify the early FeNO response profiles in patients receiving anti-IL5 biologics. We defined FeNO responders as patients with elevated FeNO levels at baseline and a decrease corresponding to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 4 months of follow-up and FeNO non-responders as those who did not experience a decrease.

RESULTS

We identified 403 patients on anti-IL5 treatment in DSAR, and 265 (66%) had elevated FeNO levels at baseline. After 4 months of treatment, 151 (57%) patients showed a significant decrease in FeNO levels, and 114 (43%) did not. FeNO responders were more likely to achieve clinical remission of asthma (34% vs. 19%, p = 0.01, OR 2.11, CI 1.04, 5.18, p = 0.03) than FeNO non-responders after 12 months of treatment. The higher remission rates in FeNO responders mainly reflected a higher rate of normalisation of lung function.

CONCLUSIONS

FeNO levels were reduced after anti-IL5 treatment in a significant proportion of patients treated with anti-IL5, and this was associated with clinical remission. Early FeNO response to anti-IL5 could potentially be used as a biomarker to guide management decisions with biologics towards remission of disease in severe asthma.

Effectiveness of anti-IL-5/5Rα biologics in severe asthma in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Three biologics targeting interleukin 5 (anti-IL-5) or its receptor-α (anti-IL-5Rα) are approved for patients with severe asthma.

Methods

We systematically searched the literature published in Medline and Embase up to 1 May 2023 to identify observational studies and nonrandomised trials that assess the response to anti-IL-5/5Rα in real-life patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. We also performed random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

We identified 6401 studies, of which 92 with 9546 patients were analysed. Biologics use was associated with a 62% reduction in severe exacerbations (risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.29-0.50) and a 54% reduction in hospitalisations (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61) at 12 months of treatment, compared to pre-treatment. Biologics improved asthma control (decrease in asthma control questionnaire score by 1.11 points (95% CI -1.29--0.94) and increase in asthma control test score by 6.41 points (95% CI 5.66-7.16)) and increased the asthma quality of life questionnaire score by 1.08 points (95% CI 0.88-1.28) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s by 0.21 L (95% CI 0.15-0.27) at 12 months. There was a significant reduction in oral corticosteroids use of 51% (risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56), with a mean dose reduction of 6.01 mg·day-1 (95% CI -7.55--4.48) at 12 months of treatment. Similar findings were observed at 3-4, 6 and 24 months. A biomarker-related response to treatment was also noted.

Conclusions

This comprehensive meta-analysis summarises the significant clinical response to anti-IL-5/5Rα biologics in real-life studies, providing important insights for their use in clinical practice.

Real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab in Japanese asthma patients with diverse backgrounds: Improvements in rhinosinusitis imaging (J-Real-Mepo)

BACKGROUND

Although randomized controlled trials (RCT) have demonstrated the efficacy of mepolizumab for asthma, they have excluded certain patient subgroups. To bridge the gap between RCT and real-world practice, the effectiveness of mepolizumab in a diverse population, including those potentially excluded from RCT, was assessed. Its effects on imaging findings and symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with asthma were also assessed.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study of patients in Japan (J-Real-Mepo: UMIN000045021) evaluated multiple endpoints and analyzed the relationship between clinical background and treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

Mepolizumab significantly reduced exacerbations, improved Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and reduced oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, regardless of patient characteristics, including age, body mass index, smoking history, and comorbidities. Regarding RCT exclusion criteria, 29.4 % of patients had no history of exacerbations. Although 25.4 % of these patients required continuous OCS, the OCS dose was reduced similar to those with a history of exacerbations. Disease control and mepolizumab effectiveness in patients with a smoking history ≥10 pack-years was similar to that of never-smokers. Patients with eosinophil counts <150/μL had lower ACT scores and higher OCS use compared with patients with eosinophilia and comparable effectiveness regarding exacerbation and OCS reduction. Significant improvements in Lund-Mackay scores and CRS symptoms were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab effectiveness was demonstrated in a broad range of patients including those with RCT exclusion criteria, who had significant disease or OCS burden. These findings may explain the consistent results between RCT and real-world studies of mepolizumab.

Targeting the IL-5 pathway in eosinophilic asthma: A comparison of anti-IL-5 versus anti-IL-5 receptor agents

Eosinophilic asthma is characterized by frequent exacerbations, poor symptom control and accelerated lung function decline. It is now recognized that the immune response underlying eosinophilic asthma involves a complex network of interconnected pathways from both the adaptive and innate immune systems. Within this response, interleukin-5 (IL-5) plays a central role in eosinophil differentiation, activation and survival and has emerged as a key target for therapies treating severe asthma. The monoclonal antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab target the ligand IL-5, preventing its interaction with eosinophils; in contrast, benralizumab binds to the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), preventing IL-5 from binding and leading to substantially greater eosinophil reduction by enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Although no direct head-to-head clinical trials of asthma have been published to formally evaluate the clinical significance of these different therapeutic approaches, the potential benefits of partial versus complete eosinophil depletion continue to remain an important area of study and debate. Here, we review the existing real-world and clinical study data of anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5R therapies in severe eosinophilic asthma.

Benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma by previous biologic use and key clinical subgroups: real-world XALOC-1 programme

BACKGROUND

Pivotal phase 3 trials and real-world studies have demonstrated benralizumab's overall efficacy and safety in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Additional large-cohort data are needed to confirm its real-world effectiveness in SEA according to previous biologic use and key baseline characteristics important for treatment selection.

METHODS

XALOC-1 is a large, multinational, retrospective, observational, real-world study programme of benralizumab in adults with SEA. This 48-week integrated analysis assessed annualised exacerbation rate (AER), maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use, asthma symptom control and lung function during a 12-month baseline period and up to 48 weeks after benralizumab initiation. Subgroup analyses were based on previous biologic use and key baseline clinical characteristics (mOCS use, blood eosinophil count, exacerbation history, age at asthma diagnosis, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level and presence of atopy and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps).

RESULTS

Out of 1002 patients analysed, 380 were biologic-experienced. At week 48, 71.3% were exacerbation-free (versus 17.2% at baseline); relative reduction in AER was 82.7% overall and 72.9% in biologic-experienced patients; rates were maintained across all key clinical characteristic subgroups. Of patients using mOCS at baseline (n=274), 47.4% (130 out of 274) eliminated their use by week 48; the mean reduction from baseline in daily dose was 51.2% and, notably, 34.9% in biologic-experienced patients (n=115). Clinically significant improvements in asthma symptom control and lung function were observed.

CONCLUSION

In this large, real-world programme, SEA patients treated with benralizumab had substantial improvements in clinical outcomes irrespective of previous biologic use and key clinical characteristics important to therapeutic decision-making in clinical practice.

Benralizumab Reduces Respiratory Exacerbations and Oral Glucocorticosteroid Dose in Patients with Severe Asthma and Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis

Background

Benralizumab reduces exacerbations and long-term oral glucocorticosteroid (OCS) exposure in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), uncontrolled symptoms and exacerbations of asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are important reasons for continued OCS therapies. We aimed to describe outcomes of patients with severe asthma and EGPA treated with benralizumab in real-life.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed adult patients from the Severe Asthma Unit at LMU Munich diagnosed with severe asthma and EGPA treated with benralizumab, differentiating two groups: Group A, patients with a stable daily OCS dose and diagnosis of EGPA >6 months ago; and Group B, patients treated with high-dose daily OCS due to recent diagnosis of EGPA <6 months ago. We compared outcome parameters at baseline and 12 months after initiation of benralizumab, including respiratory exacerbations, daily OCS dose, and lung function.

Results

Group A included 17 patients, all receiving OCS therapy and additional immunosuppressants; 15 patients (88%) continued benralizumab for more than 12 months, demonstrating a significant reduction in daily OCS dose and exacerbations while FEV1 increased. Group B included 9 patients, all with high-dose daily OCS and some receiving cyclophosphamide pulse therapy for life-threatening disease. Benralizumab addition during induction was well tolerated. A total of 7/9 (78%) continued benralizumab for more than 12 months and preserved EGPA remission at the 12-month timepoint.

Conclusion

In this real-life cohort of patients with severe asthma and EGPA, benralizumab initiation during remission maintenance reduced respiratory exacerbations and daily OCS dose. Benralizumab initiation during remission induction was associated with a high rate of clinical EGPA remission.

Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control.

SUMMARY

Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered.

Impact of biologics on lung hyperinflation in patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthma, inflammation affects both the proximal and distal airways and can cause significant hyperinflation, which is thought to be a major cause of dyspnea.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study evaluating the effect of three months of treatment with different biologic drugs (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) on pulmonary hyperinflation in a cohort of patients with severe asthma already receiving regular triple inhaled therapy. Changes in RV, RV/TLC ratio, FRC and FRC/TLC ratio were the primary efficacy measures. Secondary outcomes included FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC ratio, IC, IC/TLC ratio, asthma control test, the percentage of eosinophils in the blood and fractional FENO.

RESULTS

Benralizumab led to significant changes (p < 0.001) in RV, RV/TLC, FRC, and FRC/TLC. Dupilumab demonstrated a notable reduction in RV (p = 0.017) and RV/TLC (p = 0.002), but the decreases in FRC and FRC/TLC were merely numerical and not as pronounced as those induced by benralizumab. Omalizumab's positive impact on RV (p = 0.057) and RV/TLC (p = 0.085), as well as FRC (p = 0.202) and FRC/TLC (p = 0.096), was also predominantly numerical, with a tendency towards efficacy, albeit excluding the effect on FRC. Treatment with biologics resulted in improvements in all other lung function parameters assessed and a decrease in FENO levels.

CONCLUSION

This study, although limited by small sample size, lack of a placebo control, and unbalanced group sizes, suggests that biological agents are effective in reducing lung hyperinflation even after a relatively short treatment.

Sustained Effectiveness of Benralizumab in Naïve and Biologics-Experienced Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Patients: Results from the ANANKE Study

Purpose

Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients often present overlapping inflammatory features rendering them eligible for multiple biologic therapies; switching biologic treatment is a strategy adopted to optimize asthma control when patients show partial or no response to previous biologics.

Patients and Methods

ANANKE is a retrospective, multicenter Italian study (NCT04272463). Here, we outline the characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes in naïve-to-biologics and biologics-experienced patients treated with benralizumab for up to 96 weeks. Bio-experienced patients were split into omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets according to the type of biologic previously used.

Results

A total of 124 (76.5%) naïve and 38 (23.5%) bio-experienced patients were evaluated at index date; 13 patients (34.2%) switched from mepolizumab, 21 patients (55.3%) switched from omalizumab, and four patients (10.5%) received both biologics. The mepolizumab subset was characterized by the longest SEA duration (median of 4.6 years), the highest prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) (76.5%), and the greatest oral corticosteroid (OCS) daily dosage (median of 25 mg prednisone equivalent). The omalizumab group showed the highest severe annual exacerbation rate (AER) (1.70). At 96 weeks, treatment with benralizumab reduced any and severe AER by more than 87% and 94%, respectively, across all groups. Lung function was overall preserved, with major improvements observed in the mepolizumab group, which also revealed a 100% drop of the median OCS dose. Asthma Control Test (ACT) score improved in the naïve group while its increment was more variable in bio-experienced patients; among these, a marked difference was noticed between omalizumab and mepolizumab subsets (median ACT score of 23.5 and 18, respectively).

Conclusion

Benralizumab promotes durable and profound clinical benefits in naïve and bio-experienced groups, indicating that a nearly complete depletion of eosinophils is highly beneficial in the control of SEA, independently of previous biologic use.

Long-term multicenter comparison shows equivalent efficacy of monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma therapy

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (biologics) drastically changed severe asthma therapy. Mepolizumab (anti-interleukin (IL) 5), benralizumab (anti-IL5 receptor alpha), and dupilumab (anti-IL4/13) are the most used biologics in this context. While all biologics are efficient individually, the choice of biologic is complicated by insufficient data on their comparative long-term treatment efficacy. Here, we compare the real-life efficacy of these biologics in asthma therapy over 12 months.

METHODS

280 severe asthma patients treated with mepolizumab (129/280, 46%), benralizumab (83/280, 30%) or dupilumab (68/280, 24%) for one year were analyzed retrospectively. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. Endpoints were changes pulmonary function (PF), exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and dose, asthma control test (ACT) score and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels as well as responder status measured by the recently published "Biologic Asthma Response Score" (BARS).

RESULTS

All biologics led to significant improvements in PF, ACT and OCS dose. Only Mepolizumab and Benralizumab significantly decreased the exacerbation rate, while only Mepolizumab and Dupilumab significantly decreased FeNO. Responder rates measured by BARS were high across all groups: roughly half of all patients achieved full response and most of the remainder achieved at least partial responder status. Overall, outcomes were similar between groups after both 6 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

All biologics showed great efficacy in individual parameters and high responder rates measured by BARS without a clinically relevant advantage for any antibody. Response was usually achieved after 6 months and retained at 12 months, emphasizing the utility of early response assessment.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients enrolled in the Connect 360 benralizumab patient support programme in the UK: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patient support programmes (PSPs) allow patients with chronic diseases to receive treatment and support at home. This study describes the Connect 360 PSP delivery and impact on patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction and adherence/persistence among benralizumab-treated patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA).

METHODS

A non-interventional retrospective cohort study using data collected during routine care in the Connect 360 PSP. All consenting enrollees (≥18 years) were included in the study.

RESULTS

746 patients formed the study cohort. Mean (SD) age was 53.7 (14.5) years on PSP entry; 38.3% were female (38.7% unknown). 79.6% of patients were experienced biological therapy users. Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use was reported in 48.4% of patients at baseline and 34.8% at 48 weeks. 8.2% of patients reported asthma hospitalisation in the previous 6 months at 24 weeks vs 3.0% at 48 weeks. Mean (SD) 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) scores were 2.7 (1.5) at baseline vs 1.6 (1.3) at 48 weeks. Mean (SD) patient satisfaction scores remained high (4.5 of 5 (1.0) at baseline; 4.7 of 5 (0.6) at 48 weeks). 28.3% of patients were considered adherent at 24 weeks, increasing to 98.3% when supplemented with sales/delivery data (sensitivity analysis). Discontinuation from PSP/benralizumab was low at 24 (3.4%/3.0%) and 48 (12.6%/5.8%) weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Connect 360 PSP achieved high levels of satisfaction and persistence, with indications of positive outcomes including OCS use, hospitalisation and ACQ-6. The study was conducted during COVID-19, so it provides reassurance that patients with SEA receiving benralizumab may be supported safely and effectively at home.

Benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment outcomes in two severe asthma clinics

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study compared the clinical outcomes of severe asthmatics treated with mepolizumab and benralizumab in a tertiary care severe asthma service setting.

METHODS

Patient data at baseline, six and 12 months were collected prospectively at two large tertiary hospital severe asthma clinics following treatment initiation. Two hundred and four patients received treatment with mepolizumab (117) or benralizumab (87). Baseline characteristics between groups were similar in regard to age, gender, body mass index, steroid dose and blood eosinophil count. However, the mepolizumab cohort had a higher Asthma Control Questionnaire Score (ACQ) at baseline (4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9, p = 0.018), accompanied by more frequent reliever medication usage and lower prebronchodilator FEV1 % (56.0 ± 20.1 vs. 63.8 ± 18.9, p = 0.008).

RESULTS

After 6 months treatment, both treatments induced significant improvements in (i) ACQ of 2.3 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001), (ii) oral steroid requiring exacerbations (incident rate ratio 0.26 (0.18-0.37), p < 0.001) and (iii) FEV1 . However, the improvement in FEV1 was 0.18 (0.05-0.30) litres greater with benralizumab than with mepolizumab (p = 0.002) even when adjusting statistically for baseline differences between groups. These differences were even more pronounced at 12 months post-treatment initiation, when the improvement in exacerbation frequency with benralizumab was 64% greater than with mepolizumab (p = 0.01). Whilst both treatments significantly reduced the blood eosinophil count at 6 and 12 months, this reduction was substantially greater with benralizumab than mepolizumab (-260 cells/μL [-400 to -110, p = 0.001]).

CONCLUSION

In this large group of severe eosinophilic asthmatics, mepolizumab and benralizumab both improved disease parameters. However, benralizumab treatment appeared significantly more effective than mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations, improving FEV1 and depleting blood eosinophils.

Which biologic? New findings from a real-world study

See related article

Initiation, response assessment, and switch of antibody therapies in patients with severe asthma - A survey among German specialists

Background

For therapy of severe asthma 5 monoclonal antibodies have been available in Germany up to November 2022, but no clear rules exist on choice of initial therapy, assessment of response, and switch.

Objective

To assess current practice on all aspects of biologic therapy by specialists in Germany.

Methods

A questionnaire was created by specialists for severe asthma, which was tested and modified by further experts. We invited 119 pulmonologists of the German Asthma Net (GAN) to complete the survey and used SoSci Survey and SPSS for data collection and analysis.

Results

Forty-seven pulmonologists took part in the survey with a median annual number of patients treated with biologics of 35, 55% worked in an outpatient practice, and 40% in a hospital. Exacerbations and oral steroid use were the most important factors for the decision to start a biologic therapy. Accordingly, these parameters were also the most relevant for assessment of response. Most participants considered type-2 inflammation biomarkers and comorbidities (foremost CRSwNP and AD) for choosing initial biologic. Asthma Control Test (ACT) was the most common instrument for assessing status of disease control. There was no consensus on thresholds for response of pulmonary function tests including FEV1, FVC, and RV. Eighty-five percent of participants distinguished between "responders", "partial responders" and "non-responders". Comorbidities played an important role for the decision to switch to another biologic, eg, when initial therapy had insufficient effectiveness on CRSwNP.

Conclusion

This study provides a detailed insight into current opinions and practice of biologic use in severe asthma in Germany.

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

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

Long-Term Real-World Outcomes of Mepolizumab and Benralizumab Among Biologic-Naive Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Experience of 3 Years' Therapy

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapies such as mepolizumab and benralizumab offer treatment options for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although long-term real-world data on their use are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment among biologic-naive patients with SEA over 36 months and describe the incidence of super-response at 12 and 36 months, identifying potential predictive factors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of patients with SEA who were given mepolizumab or benralizumab from May 2017 to December 2019, and who completed 36 months of therapy. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and medication use were described. Data on clinical outcomes, including maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, annual exacerbation rate (AER), mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6), and eosinophil count were collected at baseline and at 12 and 36 months. Super-response was evaluated at 12 and 36 months.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were included. Maintenance OCS use significantly improved from baseline (5.3 mg/d) to 12 months (2.4 mg/d, P < .0001) and 36 months (0.6 mg/d; P < .0001). Annual exacerbation rate decreased from baseline (5.8) to 12 months (0.9; P < .0001) and 36 months (1.2; P < .0001). Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, ACQ-6, and eosinophil count significantly improved from baseline to 12 and 36 months. Twenty-nine patients demonstrated super-response at 12 months. Compared with those without a super-response, these patients had better baseline AER (4.7 vs 6.5; P = .009), mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (3.41 vs 2.54; P = .002), and ACQ-6 (3.38 vs 4.06; P = .03) scores. Most maintained a super-response up to 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab and benralizumab are associated with significant improvements in OCS use, AER, and asthma control in real-world cohorts for up to 36 months, providing insight into long-term use for SEA.

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort.

METHODS

We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy.

RESULTS

Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

Switching to Dupilumab from Other Biologics without a Treatment Interval in Patients with Severe Asthma: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signals. Several large clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with severe asthma. However, few studies have examined a switch to dupilumab from other biologics.

METHODS

This retrospective, multi-center observational study was conducted by the Okayama Respiratory Disease Study Group. Consecutive patients with severe asthma who were switched to dupilumab from other biologics without a treatment interval between May 2019 and September 2021 were enrolled. Patients with a treatment interval of more than twice the standard dosing interval for the previous biologic prior to dupilumab administration were excluded.

RESULTS

The median patient age of the 27 patients enrolled in this study was 57 years (IQR, 45-68 years). Eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS)/chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp (CRSwNP) was confirmed in 23 patients. Previous biologics consisted of omalizumab (n = 3), mepolizumab (n = 3), and benralizumab (n = 21). Dupilumab significantly improved FEV1 (median improvement: +145 mL) and the asthma control test score (median improvement: +2). The overall response rate in patients receiving dupilumab for asthma as determined using the Global Evaluations of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) was 77.8%. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the GETE-improved group vs. the non-GETE-improved group. ECRS/CRSwNP improved in 20 of the 23 patients (87.0%). Overall, 8 of the 27 patients (29.6%) developed transient hypereosinophilia (>1500/μL), but all were asymptomatic and able to continue dupilumab therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab was highly effective for the treatment of severe asthma and ECRS/CRSwNP, even in patients switched from other biologics without a treatment interval.

Relationship Between the Response to Antibody Therapy and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Disorders in Patients with Severe Asthma

Purpose

Asthma is associated with a high prevalence of psychopathological disorders, especially depressive disorders or anxiety. In patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, monoclonal antibody (mAb)-therapy positively influenced control of mental disorders. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of antibody therapy on the burden of these mental diseases depending on responder status.

Patients and Methods

Data were collected retrospectively in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma (n = 82) prior to mAb-therapy ("baseline") (omalizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab or mepolizumab). Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) were detected at baseline using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), as well as general sociodemographic data and lung function parameters. At 6-month (±3 month) follow-up, the burden of psychopathological symptoms under mAb-therapy was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-2 (GAD-2). Response status was classified using the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS), assessing exacerbations, oral corticosteroid usage and asthma control test (ACT) score. Predictors for non-response to mAb-therapy were identified using linear regression analysis.

Results

Patients with severe asthma suffered from symptoms of MDD/GAD more often compared to the general population, with a higher prevalence among mAb therapy non-responders. mAb-responders exhibited a declining burden of MDD, better quality of life (QoL), less exacerbations, better lung function and better disease control compared to non-responders. A history of symptoms of depression was identified as a predictor for non-response to mAb-therapy.

Conclusion

Asthma symptoms and psychological problems are linked and more prevalent in our cohort of severe asthma patients than in the general population. Patients with signs of MDD/GAD before mAb-therapy show less mAb therapy response suggesting a negative impact of prior psychological problems on treatment response. In some patients, the score on MDD/GAD was caused by severe asthma - here symptoms decreased after effective treatment.

Exploring the Interaction between Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Biologic Treatment in Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a biomarker of airway inflammation associated with airway hyper-responsiveness and type-2 inflammation. Its role in the management of severe asthmatic patients undergoing biologic treatment, as well as FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment, is largely unexplored.

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate published data contributing to the following areas: (1) FeNO as a predictive biomarker of response to biologic treatment; (2) the influence of biologic treatment in FeNO values; (3) FeNO as a biomarker for the prediction of exacerbations in patients treated with biologics.

METHODS

The systematic search was conducted on the Medline database through the Pubmed search engine, including all studies from 2009 to the present.

RESULTS

Higher baseline values of FeNO are associated with better clinical control in patients treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab. FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment highlights a clear reduction in FeNO values in patients treated with anti-IL4/13 and anti-IL13, as well as in patients treated with tezepelumab. During the treatment, FeNO may help to predict clinical worsening and to differentiate eosinophilic from non-eosinophilic exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher baseline FeNO levels appear to be associated with a greater benefit in terms of clinical control and reduction of exacerbation rate, while FeNO dynamics during biologic treatment remains a largely unexplored issue since few studies have investigated it as a primary outcome. FeNO remains detectable during biologic treatment, but its potential utility as a biomarker of clinical control is still unclear and represents an interesting research area to be developed.

Severe Asthma Remissions Induced by Biologics Targeting IL5/IL5r: Results from a Multicenter Real-Life Study

Add-on biological therapy has proven to be effective in many patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In this observational multicenter retrospective study, we report the results obtained with mepolizumab and benralizumab in severe asthmatics treated for 12 months in a real-life setting. In these patients, peripheral eosinophil levels, pulmonary function trends, exacerbation rates, systemic corticosteroid use, and symptom control were evaluated during the observation period, to understand which patients met all the criteria in order to be considered in disease remission. The percentage of remittent patients was 30.12% in the mepolizumab-treated subgroup, while in the benralizumab-treated subgroup, patients in complete disease remission were 40%, after 12 months. The results of this study confirm the efficacy of anti-IL-5 biologic drugs in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in a real-life setting.

Impact of benralizumab on asthma exacerbation-related medical healthcare resource utilization and medical costs: results from the ZEPHYR 2 study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Benralizumab is a biologic add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations, but data on the associated medical utilization are scarce. This retrospective study evaluated the economic value of benralizumab by analyzing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in a large patient population in the US.

METHODS

Insurance claims data (11/2016-6/2020) were analyzed. A pre-post design was used to compare asthma exacerbation rates, medical HRU and medical costs in the 12 months pre vs. post index (day after benralizumab initiation). Patients were aged ≥12 years, with ≥2 records of benralizumab and ≥2 asthma exacerbations pre index, and constituted non-mutually exclusive cohorts: biologic-naïve, biologic-experienced (switched from omalizumab or mepolizumab to benralizumab), or with extended follow-up (18 or 24 months).

RESULTS

In all cohorts (mean age 51-53 years; 67-70% female; biologic-naïve, N = 1,292; biologic-experienced, N = 349; 18-month follow-up, N = 419; 24-month follow-up, N = 156), benralizumab treatment reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation by 53-68% (p < .001). In the biologic-naïve cohort, inpatient admissions decreased by 58%, emergency department visits by 54%, and outpatient visits by 58% post index (all p < .001), with similar reductions in exacerbation-related medical HRU in other cohorts. Exacerbation-related mean total medical costs decreased by 51% in the biologic-naïve cohort ($4691 pre-index, $2289 post-index), with cost differences ranging from 16% to 64% across other cohorts (prior omalizumab: $2686 to $1600; prior mepolizumab: $5990 to $5008; 18-month: $3636 to $1667; 24-month: $4014 to $1449; all p < .001). Medical HRU and cost reductions were durable, decreasing by 64% in year 1 and 66% in year 2 in the 24 month follow-up cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with benralizumab with prior exacerbations experienced reductions in asthma exacerbations and exacerbation-related medical HRU and medical costs regardless of prior biologic use, with the benefits observed for up to 24 months after treatment initiation.

Biologics for severe asthma: The real-world evidence, effectiveness of switching, and prediction factors for the efficacy

Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized controlled trials have established clinical evidence, but a significant portion of patients with severe asthma in real-life settings would have been excluded from those trials. Therefore, real-world research is necessary, and there is a growing body of information about the long-term efficacy and safety of biologics. Multiple clinical phenotypes of severe asthma exist, and it is crucial to choose patients based on their phenotypes. Blood eosinophil count is an important biomarker for anti-IL-5 therapies, and FeNO and eosinophil counts serve as prediction markers for dupilumab. Reliable markers for predicting response, however, have not yet been fully established for omalizumab. Identification of clinical or biological prediction factors is crucial for the path toward clinical remission because the current treatment goal includes clinical remission, which is defined as a realistic goal for remission off treatment. Additionally, since there are now multiple biologic options and overlaps in eligibility for biologics in clinical practice, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of switching the biologics is crucial. Investigations into the clinical trajectory following the cessation of biologics are another important issue. Recent research on omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab's real-world effectiveness, the prediction factor for the efficacy, and the impact of switching or discontinuation will be reviewed and discussed in this review.

The Clinical Efficacy of Type 2 Inflammation-Specific Agents Targeting Interleukins in Reducing Exacerbations in Severe Asthma: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Monoclonal antibodies against type 2 inflammatory pathways are currently promising therapeutics for severe asthma. The aim of this study was to determine how well type 2 (T2) inflammation-specific agents targeting interleukins reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations (AE) in patients with severe asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The primary outcome was the reduction rate of annualized AEs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 17 studies comprising 11800 subjects. A total of 6197 patients received T2-specific agents (benralizumab, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and tralokinumab). Overall, T2-specific agents were significantly associated with a lower risk of AE, compared with placebo [rate ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.66]. Among all studied agents, only tralokinumab did not demonstrate a reduction in AE. The efficacy of T2-specific agents in reducing AE was maintained regardless of the pathway used. A subgroup analysis indicated that T2-specific agents further reduced the risk of AE in patients with eosinophil counts of ≥300 cells/µL (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that T2-specific agents are significantly associated with a reduced rate of AE, compared with placebo. Their efficacy appears to be enhanced in patients with eosinophil counts of ≥300 cells/µL.

A rational approach to compare and select biologic therapeutics in asthma

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTIONS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical and Lung Function Outcomes After Anti-IgE or Anti-IL5 Therapy in Severe Asthma

Background

Although there have been indirect comparisons of the relative efficacy of mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) and benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα) in severe asthma patients, long-term direct head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Here, we (i) examined the effect of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and omalizumab on symptom control and lung function parameters over time; and (ii) compared the efficacy of mepolizumab and benralizumab on symptom control and lung function outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with severe asthma taking anti-IgE (omalizumab; n = 24), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, n = 23), or anti-IL-Rα (benralizumab; n = 12) therapy. Data were extracted on (i) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) scores; (ii) forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁); and (iii) peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) at 4–6 months and 1 year and documented reductions in exacerbations. Clinical and lung function outcomes were compared between patients taking mepolizumab and benralizumab and over time.

Results

There were significant decreases in ACQ-5 scores (3.3 ± 0.93 to 1.7 ± 0.98 for mepolizumab, 3.5 ± 0.72 to 1.6 ±0.89 for benralizumab, and 3.5 ± 0.95 to 1.7 ± 1.1 for omalizumab; t-test, all p < 0.0001) but not increases in FEV₁ and PEFR for all three agents after 4–6 months of therapy, which persisted but did not decrease further at one year. There were trends toward a greater percentage increase in FEV₁ and PEFR from baseline and a decrease in the number of exacerbations in patients taking benralizumab than those taking mepolizumab.

Conclusion

Although limited by a small sample size, this real-world, head-to-head comparison of mepolizumab and benralizumab is consistent with comparative data on asthma biologicals and indirect comparisons showing no major difference in efficacy. The study also generates new testable hypotheses about the efficacy of asthma biologicals in different patient populations.

Real-life effectiveness of mepolizumab in severe asthma: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in randomized controlled trials is well established. Following approval of mepolizumab as add-on therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma in multiple regions worldwide, it is now important to determine its impact in real-world settings in which patients are not subject to stringent eligibility criteria. This systematic literature review assessed published evidence of clinical outcomes, safety, and healthcare resource use among patients with severe asthma receiving mepolizumab in real-world settings.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process via Ovid.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Eligible studies were observational, and enrolled ≥10 patients with asthma who received mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously. Data extracted included annualized exacerbation rate, mean daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, proportion of patients using OCS, several measures of lung function, patient-reported asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety, and economic burden.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles (22 unique studies; 2,040 patients with severe asthma on mepolizumab) were identified. Mepolizumab use was associated with a reduction in annualized exacerbation rates (requiring OCS) of 54-97% (p < 0.05 in all studies), reduced mean/median daily OCS doses, and OCS discontinuation during follow-up (27-84% of patients). Improvements in lung function, asthma control, and HRQoL were also observed. The most commonly reported adverse events included headache and arthralgia; discontinuation of mepolizumab due to adverse events occurred in 0-10.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Findings show that patients with severe asthma consistently demonstrate clinically relevant benefits with mepolizumab treatment in a real-world setting.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at at www.tandfonline.com/ijas .

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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