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

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.

Advancing Care in Severe Asthma: The Art of Switching Biologics

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

Benralizumab for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is effective in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma and is being investigated for the treatment of other eosinophil-associated diseases. Reports on the use of benralizumab for the treatment of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) are limited to case reports and small case series.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, retrospective study including EGPA patients treated with off-label benralizumab. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete response defined as no disease activity (Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score=0) and a prednisone dose ≤4 mg/day. Partial response was defined as no disease activity and a prednisone dose ≥4 mg/day.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included, including 31 (46%) who had previously received mepolizumab. The use of benralizumab was warranted by uncontrolled asthma in 54 (81%), persistent ear, nose and throat (ENT) manifestations in 27 (40%) and persistent glucocorticoids (GCs) use in 48 (74%) patients. Median (IQR) follow-up after starting benralizumab was 23 (9-34) months. Thirty-three patients (49%) achieved a complete response, 24 (36%) achieved a partial response and 10 (15%) did not respond. Among the 57 patients who initially responded, 10 (18%) eventually required further line treatments. GCs were discontinued in 23 patients (38%). Prior mepolizumab use was associated with a higher rate of primary failure (26.7% vs 5.4%, p=0.034) and less frequent GCs discontinuation (14.8% vs 55.9%, p=0.001). Vasculitis flares occurred in 7 patients (11%) and were associated with histological evidence of vasculitis and/or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies positivity at benralizumab initiation (p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab appears to be an effective treatment for refractory asthma or ENT manifestations in EGPA and allows GC-sparing. However, its efficacy was lower after prior failure of mepolizumab.

Achieving clinical outcomes with benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma patients in a real-world setting: orbe II study

BACKGROUND

The ORBE II study aimed to describe the characteristics and clinical outcomes of adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) treated with benralizumab in a real-world setting in Spain.

METHODS

ORBE II (NCT04648839) was an observational, retrospective cohort study in adult SEA patients who had been prescribed benralizumab. Demographic and clinical data of 204 SEA patients were collected 12 months prior to benralizumab initiation (baseline) and at follow-up. Exacerbation rate, asthma symptoms, maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and lung function were evaluated, among other variables.

RESULTS

A total of 204 SEA patients were evaluated. Mean (standard deviation, SD) age of the study population was 56.4 (12.4) years, 62.3% were women and mean (SD) duration of asthma was 15.1 (12.7) years. Median (Q1-Q3) follow-up duration was 19.5 (14.2-24.2) months. At baseline, 72.6% of the overall population (OP) presented blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/µL; 36.8% had comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP); 84.8% reported at least one severe exacerbation, and 29.1% were OCS-dependent. At 1 year of follow-up, patients receiving benralizumab treatment had a 85.6% mean reduction in exacerbations from baseline, and 81.4% of patients achieved zero exacerbations. We also found a clinically relevant mean (SD) increase in pre-bronchodilator (BD) FEV1 of 331 (413) mL, with 66.7% of patients achieving a pre-BD FEV1 increase ≥ 100 mL, and 46.3% of patients achieving a pre-BD FEV1 ≥ 80% of predicted. Regarding symptom control, 73.8% of the OP obtained an ACT score ≥ 20 points. After 1 year of follow-up, mean reduction in the daily OCS dose was 70.5%, and complete OCS withdrawal was achieved by 52.8% of the OCS-dependent patients. Almost half (43.7%) of the OP on benralizumab met all four criteria for clinical remission. Patients with concomitant CRSwNP obtained similar or enhanced outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the real-world benefits of benralizumab in SEA patients, and particularly in those with concomitant CRSwNP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04648839.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Switching Biological Therapies in Severe Asthma

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

Long-term effectiveness of benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma patients treated for 96-weeks: data from the ANANKE study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of benralizumab has been broadly demonstrated in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), but only few real-life studies evaluated its long-term effects. Here we present novel data from the ANANKE study in which a large cohort of SEA patients was treated for up to 96 weeks.

METHODS

ANANKE (NCT04272463) is an observational retrospective Italian study investigating the key characteristics of SEA patients (collected during the 12 months prior to benralizumab initiation) and the clinical outcomes during benralizumab treatment (annual exacerbation rate [AER], lung function, asthma control, OCS use, healthcare resource utilization). A post hoc analysis was also conducted in groups of patients based on history of previous biologic therapy (bio-experienced versus naïve patients). Analyses were descriptive only.

RESULTS

Before benralizumab initiation, evaluable SEA patients (N = 162, 61.1% females, mean age 56.0 ± 12.7) showed a median blood eosinophil count (BEC) of 600 cells/mm³ (IQR: 430-890). Patients experienced frequent exacerbations (annualized exacerbation rate [AER]: 4.10, severe AER: 0.98), with impaired lung function and poor asthma control (median ACT score: 14) despite 25.3% reported oral corticosteroid (OCS) use. Nasal polyposis was present in 53.1% patients; 47.5% patients were atopic. After 96 weeks since the start of benralizumab, nearly 90% patients were still on treatment; benralizumab dramatically decreased exacerbations (AER: - 94.9%; severe AER: - 96.9%), improved respiratory parameters (median increase in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume [pre-BD FEV1]: + 400 mL) and asthma control (median ACT score: 23) while eliminating OCS in 60% patients. Importantly, benralizumab effects were either maintained or progressively improved over time, accompanied by a nearly complete depletion of BEC. Benralizumab reduced AER both in naïve (any AER: - 95.9%; severe AER: - 97.5%) and bio-experienced patients (any AER: - 92.4%; severe AER: - 94.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Profound and sustained improvements in all asthma outcomes were observed with benralizumab. The correct identification of patients' eosinophilic-driven asthma phenotype was essential to ensure the achievement of such remarkable results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04272463.