Omalizumab in severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with standard therapy: a randomized trial

Drug survival of omalizumab in atopic asthma: Impact of clinical and genetic variables

It is estimated that 40-50% of severe asthma has an atopic basis, representing a clinical challenge and a significant economic burden for healthcare systems. The most effective treatment has emerged with the use of biologic therapies such as omalizumab; however, the rate of therapy switching due to loss of efficacy is high, which has a negative impact on the healthcare system. The aim was to evaluate the influence of genetic polymorphisms as predictors of omalizumab survival. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of 110 patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab in a tertiary hospital. We analyzed FCER1A (rs2251746, rs2427837), FCER1B (rs1441586, rs573790, rs1054485, rs569108), C3 (rs2230199), FCGR2A (rs1801274), FCGR2B (rs3219018, rs1050501), FCGR3A (rs10127939, rs396991), IL1RL1 (rs1420101, rs17026974, rs1921622) and GATA2 (rs4857855) by real-time PCR using Taqman probes. Drug survival was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of omalizumab. Cox regression analysis adjusted for the presence of respiratory disease, GERD, SAHS and years with asthma showed that the SNPs FCER1B rs573790 - CT (p < .001; HR = 3.38; CI95% = 1.66-6.87), FCGR3A rs10127939-AC (p = .018; HR = 3.85; CI95% = 1.25-11.81) and FCGR3A rs396991-CC (p = .020; HR = 2.23; CI95% = 1.14-4.38) were the independent variables associated with worse survival in patients diagnosed with asthma. A trend toward statistical significance was also found between and FCGR3A rs10127939-CC (p = .080; HR = 0.13; CI95% = 0.01-1.28) and longer drug survival. The results of this study demonstrate the potential influence of the polymorphisms studied on omalizumab survival and the clinical benefit that could be achieved by defining predictive biomarkers of drug survival.

Omalizumab is ineffective in regulating proasthmatic serum cytokine and chemokine levels in nonresponders with high BMI

Background

Omalizumab provides clinical benefits to a fraction of patients with asthma. It remains unclear why some patients do not respond to omalizumab therapy.

Objective

We sought to investigate whether omalizumab could alter serum cytokine and chemokine levels that could be associated with asthma pathogenesis. We also investigated why omalizumab is ineffective in controlling proasthmatic serum cytokine and chemokine levels in nonresponders.

Methods

Serum cytokine and chemokine levels in patients with moderate to severe asthma (N = 45; 34 responders and 11 nonresponders) were assessed before and after 26 weeks of omalizumab therapy. Correlations between cytokine and chemokine levels and asthma symptoms as well as characteristics of responders and nonresponders were assessed. Nonasthmatic subjects (N = 22) served as controls for patients with asthma (N = 45).

Results

Omalizumab was more effective in patients with increased serum eotaxin-1 and IL-13 levels than in others at baseline. Omalizumab decreased eotaxin-1 and IL-13, along with levels of most of the cytokines and chemokines tested, including IL-7, CCL17, and CXCL10, in responders, except for CCL5 and CCL22, which can contribute to neutrophilic and type 2 airway inflammation, respectively. In contrast, omalizumab did not decrease such serum cytokine and chemokine levels in nonresponders. Of interest, serum CCL17, CCL22, CXCL10, and IL-7 levels in nonresponders were associated with their body mass index, which could explain why omalizumab was unable to reduce their concentrations in nonresponders.

Conclusions

Omalizumab can regulate most cytokine and chemokine levels in responders. However, in nonresponders, it is unable to modulate specific proasthmatic cytokines and chemokines due to their association with individual body mass index, which is not influenced by omalizumab.

Long-term, real-world effectiveness of biologics for severe uncontrolled asthma: The PROSPECT study

BACKGROUND

Several biologics (BIOs) are available to treat severe uncontrolled asthma. However, there are limited data regarding their long-term effectiveness in real-world clinical practice. We investigated the long-term, over 24 months, effectiveness of initiating a BIO in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma deemed candidates for BIO therapy.

METHODS

PROSPECT was a multicenter observational cohort study that enrolled patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in Japan. We divided the patients into two groups according to whether they did (BIO group) or did not (non-BIO group) initiate a BIO within 12 weeks of enrollment. The BIO (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) was chosen at the physician's discretion considering the patient's asthma phenotype.

RESULTS

Of 306 patients enrolled, 285 were included in the full analysis set (BIO group: n = 125; non-BIO group: n = 160). The adjusted least-squares mean change in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s at 24 months was 0.17 L (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.23) and 0.04 L (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.10) in the BIO and non-BIO groups, respectively (adjusted difference: 0.13 L; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.21, P = 0.004). The changes from baseline to 6, 12, and 18 months were significantly greater in the BIO group. Reduction in asthma exacerbations, improvement in 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire scores, decreased daily oral corticosteroid doses, and higher oral corticosteroid withdrawal rate were observed in the BIO group.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of a BIO was associated with significant improvements in long-term lung function and asthma control among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in real-world clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network clinical trials registry (Japan), UMIN000038006. First registered: September 13, 2019.

Shared decision-making in severe asthma therapy: qualitative study of physician-patient communication

RATIONALE

Biologics are indicated for severe asthma, but little is known about the factors driving patient and physician decisions surrounding their use.

OBJECTIVES

To understand decision drivers for biologic use and conversational dynamics between patients with severe asthma and physicians.

METHODS

This retrospective database study used anonymized physician-patient conversations (recorded September 2018-August 2020) from routine clinical visits, captured in Verilogue's physician-patient syndicated database. Eligible conversations included those of patients with severe asthma, who were considering biologic therapy (Topic 1), had initiated biologic within 7 months of clinical visit (Topic 2), or were discontinuing/considering switching biologic treatment (Topic 3). Conversations were analyzed quantitatively and descriptively by topic.

RESULTS

Overall, 50 conversations between 14 physicians and 50 patients were included (considering biologic, n = 10; recent biologic initiation, n = 20; switched/discontinued biologic, n = 20). Physicians had 68-73% share of the conversation. When considering biologic treatment, the presence of symptoms (including coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness) drove the decision, with 3/10 patients providing additional symptom impact/severity details, and 2/10 describing adjustments to accommodate symptoms. Physicians set unspecified treatment goals and modest expectations for biologic efficacy, framing any symptom control as success (13/20 conversations). Patient symptom assessment drove the decision to continue, discontinue, or switch biologic treatment: in 5/20 cases, physicians asked patients if they were "better" or the medication is "helping".

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that patients relied on physicians to shape patient-physician interactions and treatment expectations. This suggests that shared decision-making may improve physicians' understanding of the impact severe asthma has on patients and facilitate the setting of treatment expectations.

Eosinophil-Driven vs. Eosinophil-Associated Severe Asthma: Practical Implications for Target Treatment

Severe asthma (SA) is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting approximately 10% of asthmatic patients, and eosinophils are considered key pathogenetic actors in a significant number of patients. Biological therapies have been demonstrated to improve asthma control by decreasing exacerbation rates and reducing the use of oral corticosteroids. In this context, phenotyping and endotyping patients with SA is essential for selecting the most effective therapeutic approach. For this purpose, biomarkers such as IgE, absolute blood eosinophil count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are crucial in defining a patient's inflammatory profile. Their integration provides a framework for classifying asthma into T2-high, T2-mild, or T2-low categories, guiding personalized treatment strategies. By incorporating multiple biomarkers into a unified model, it is possible to better stratify patients and optimize biologic therapy selection, paving the way for improved outcomes in SA management. This review aims to evaluate the role of phenotyping and endotyping SA patients, with particular attention to the impact of eosinophilic inflammation and combinatory biomarkers on decision-making processes for the selection of biological therapies.

Real-world mepolizumab treatment in patients with severe asthma decreased exacerbations, oral corticosteroid use, and healthcare resource utilization and costs over 4 years: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although the efficacy of mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use in severe asthma is well-established, real-world long-term effectiveness data are limited. This study evaluated the real-world impact of mepolizumab treatment in patients with severe asthma over a 4-year follow-up period.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with asthma initiating mepolizumab (index date: first claim, November 2015-September 2019) using the Merative MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Databases. Outcomes included asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and exacerbation-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs, assessed 12-months pre-index (baseline) and annually during the 4-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Among 189 eligible patients, mean asthma exacerbation rate (AER) declined progressively from baseline during follow-up: AER decreased by 53.8% at Year 1 and 73.8% by Year 4 (p < 0.001). The annual OCS prescription rate reduced from baseline by 41.1% at Year 1 and 62.2% at Year 4 (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with both no exacerbations and no OCS use progressively increased from 6.4% at baseline to 18.5% at Year 1 and 41.8% at Year 4. Exacerbation-related HCRU including inpatient, emergency room, and outpatient office visits decreased from baseline (9.0%, 21.7%, and 78.8%, respectively), at Year 1 (3.2%, 12.2%, and 49.2%), and Year 4 (0.0%, 4.8%, and 31.8%). Exacerbation-related healthcare costs declined from $4,635 at baseline to $1,487 at Year 1 and $217 at Year 4 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with mepolizumab demonstrated progressive and sustained long-term, real-world reductions in exacerbation frequency, OCS dependency, and exacerbation-related HCRU and costs over 4 years.

Recent Advances and New Therapeutic Goals in the Management of Severe Asthma

Asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation as its primary pathological condition, which leads to various respiratory symptoms due to airway narrowing, with type 2 inflammation playing a central role. Asthma treatment, primarily centered on inhaled corticosteroids, aims to suppress type 2 inflammation and improve airway narrowing. However, severe asthma that cannot be controlled with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids or other asthma medications remains a clinical issue. The availability of multiple biological agents has recently improved the management of severe asthma. In addition, the concept of clinical remission has emerged as a treatment goal, further clarifying the objectives of asthma management. However, despite these advancements, the treatment of severe asthma driven primarily by non-type 2 inflammation remains a major challenge, and new biologics are currently being developed to address this issue.

Asthma Biologics Across the T2 Spectrum of Inflammation in Severe Asthma: Biomarkers and Mechanism of Action

Airway inflammation, a hallmark feature of asthma, drives many canonical features of the disease, including airflow limitation, mucus plugging, airway remodeling, and hyperresponsiveness. The T2 inflammatory paradigm is firmly established as the dominant mechanism of asthma pathogenesis, largely due to the success of inhaled corticosteroids and biologic therapies targeting components of the T2 pathway, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). However, up to 30% of patients may lack signatures of meaningful T2 inflammation (ie, T2 low). In T2-low asthma patients, T2 inflammation may be masked due to anti-inflammatory treatments or may be highly variable depending on exposure to common asthma triggers such as allergens, respiratory infections, and smoke or pollution. The epithelium and epithelial cytokines (TSLP, IL-33) are increasingly recognized as upstream drivers of canonical T2 pathways and as modulators of various effector cells, including mast cells, eosinophils, and neutrophils, which impact the pathological manifestations of airway smooth muscle hypertrophy, hypercontractility, and airway hyperresponsiveness. Approved biologics for severe asthma target several distinct mechanisms of action, leading to differential effects on the spectrum of T2 inflammation, inflammatory biomarkers, and treatment efficacy (reducing asthma exacerbations, improving lung function, and diminishing symptoms). The approved anti-asthma biologics primarily target T2 immune pathways, with little evidence suggesting a benefit of targeting non-T2 asthma-associated mediators. Indeed, many negative results challenge current assumptions about the etiology of non-T2 asthma and raise doubts about the viability of targeting popular alternative inflammatory pathways, such as T17. Novel data have emerged from the use of biologics to treat various inflammatory mediators and have furthered our understanding of pathogenic mechanisms that drive asthma. This review discusses inflammatory pathways that contribute to asthma, quantitatively outlines effects of available biologics on biomarkers, and summarizes data and challenges from clinical trials that address non-T2 mechanisms of asthma.

Biologic Medications for Severe Asthma: Implications for Understanding Pathogenic Heterogeneity and Endotypes

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways long known for phenotypic heterogeneity. Phenotyping studies in asthma have led to a better characterization of disease pathogenesis, yet further work is needed to pair available treatments with disease endotypes. In this review, the biology of targeted pathways is discussed along with the efficacy of biologic therapies targeting those pathways. Results of asthma clinical trials are included, as well as results of trials in related diseases. This review then analyzes how biologics help to inform the complex immunobiology of asthma and further guide their use while identifying areas for future research.

Biologics in severe asthma: a state-of-the-art review

Asthma is considered severe if it remains uncontrolled despite optimal conventional therapy, characterised by poor symptom control, frequent exacerbations and increased exposure to systemic corticosteroids. This has a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and healthcare resource utilisation. Recent advances in the understanding of asthma heterogeneity and immunopathogenesis have helped delineate precise disease pathways. The discovery of these pivotal pathways has led to the development of highly effective biologic therapies. Currently available asthma biologics target immunoglobulin E, interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5Rα, IL-4Rα and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Identification of specific asthma phenotypes, utilising easily measurable biomarkers, has paved the way towards personalised and precision asthma management. Biologic therapies play a significant role in reducing exacerbations, hospitalisations and the need for maintenance systemic steroids, while also improving the quality of life in patients with severe asthma. The evidence for their clinical efficacy comes from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), extension studies, metanalyses and real-world data. This review synthesises findings from early, pivotal RCTs and subsequent studies following the approval of biologics for severe asthma. The safety and efficacy data from these studies, completed in a variety of settings, provide practical perspectives on their application and enhance their generalisability.

Biomarkers in asthma, potential for therapeutic intervention

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by multiple phenotypes with varying risk factors and therapeutic responses. This Commentary describes research on biomarkers for T2-"high" and T2-"low" inflammation, a hallmark of the disease. Patients with asthma who exhibit an increase in airway T2 inflammation are classified as having T2-high asthma. In this endotype, Type 2 cytokines interleukins (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13, plus other inflammatory mediators, lead to increased eosinophilic inflammation and elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). In contrast, T2-low asthma has no clear definition. Biomarkers are considered valuable tools as they can help identify various phenotypes and endotypes, as well as treatment response to standard treatment or potential therapeutic targets, particularly for biologics. As our knowledge of phenotypes and endotypes expands, biologics are increasingly integrated into treatment strategies for severe asthma. These treatments block specific inflammatory pathways or single mediators. While single or composite biomarkers may help to identify subsets of patients who might benefit from these treatments, only a few inflammatory biomarkers have been validated for clinical application. One example is sputum eosinophilia, a particularly useful biomarker, as it may suggest corticosteroid responsiveness or reflect non-compliance to inhaled corticosteroids. As knowledge develops, a meaningful goal would be to provide individualized care to patients with asthma.

Asthma Biologics: Lung Function, Steroid-Dependence, and Exacerbations

The development of multiple targeted biologic therapies over the past two decades has revolutionized the management of asthma. Currently, there are 6 monoclonal antibodies that target specific inflammatory mediators involved in the pathophysiology of asthma, and together, they provide the opportunity for personalized treatment options beyond bronchodilators and inhaled or systemic glucocorticoids in severe and difficult-to-control cases of asthma. These agents are the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, the anti-IL-5 antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab, the IL-5 receptor alpha antagonist benralizumab, the IL-4 receptor alpha antagonist dupilumab, and the anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin antibody tezepelumab.

Real-World Studies of Biologics for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Asthma

Presently, there are 6 biologic agents available for treatment of asthma. Each of these agents has undergone robust clinical trials in their approval programs. Such studies rely upon very rigid entry criteria that may not translate to real-world efficacy. Thus, exploring the efficacy of these agents in a larger, more heterogeneous, population brings a sense of comfort regarding their efficacy in the real-world. This review explores the available literature regarding the use of biologics in the real world, with a focus on markers of likely response to therapy.

Real-world unified airway benefits of mepolizumab: Effectiveness in patients with asthma and comorbid nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

Nasal polyps (NPs) are commonly associated with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). In keeping with the unified airway hypothesis, asthma and CRS with NP (CRSwNP) frequently co-occur, share a similar pathophysiology, and are often treated with oral corticosteroids (OCS); however, a need for alternative treatment options for patients with comorbid asthma and CRSwNP remains.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the short- and long-term dual airway effectiveness of the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, mepolizumab, in real-world patients with asthma and comorbid NP.

METHODS

Adult patients with CRSwNP who initiated mepolizumab from November 1, 2014, to September 30, 2021, were identified from 2 Merative MarketScan Research Databases. Outcomes were compared for the 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab initiation and a variable follow-up period. Primary outcomes included the following: annual rate and proportion of patients with NP- and asthma-related exacerbations; NP surgery occurrences; all-cause OCS claims, number of OCS bursts, and daily OCS dose; all-cause and NP-related health care resource utilization.

RESULTS

During the 12 months post-index, patients experienced fewer NP- and asthma-related exacerbations, required fewer sinus surgeries, and reduced use of OCS, with fewer all-cause OCS claims and OCS bursts. Significant reductions in asthma exacerbation-related and NP-related health care resource utilization were also observed.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrated the near- and long-term real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab treatment, with a focus on dual lower and upper airway benefit from single-agent add-on therapy. These results may aid physicians in clinical decision-making for patients with asthma and comorbid CRSwNP with complex care needs.

Biomarkers and clinical outcomes after tezepelumab cessation: Extended follow-up from the 2-year DESTINATION study

BACKGROUND

Long-term tezepelumab treatment in the DESTINATION study (NCT03706079) resulted in reduced asthma exacerbations, reduced biomarker levels, and improved lung function and symptom control in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the time course of changes in biomarkers and clinical manifestations after treatment cessation after 2 years of tezepelumab treatment.

METHODS

DESTINATION was a 2-year, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of tezepelumab treatment in patients (12-80 years old) with severe asthma. Patients received their last treatment doses at week 100 and could enroll in an extended follow-up period from weeks 104 to 140. Change over time in key biomarkers and clinical outcomes were assessed in tezepelumab vs placebo recipients for 40 weeks after stopping treatment.

RESULTS

Of 569 patients enrolled in the extended follow-up period, 426 were included in the analysis (289 received tezepelumab and 137 placebo). In the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose, blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 scores gradually increased from weeks 4 to 10, with a gradual reduction in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second such that blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and clinical outcomes returned to placebo levels; however, none of these outcomes returned to baseline levels. Total IgE levels increased later from week 28 and remained well below placebo and baseline levels during the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose.

CONCLUSION

This analysis reveals the benefits of continued tezepelumab treatment in the management of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, compared with stopping treatment after 2 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03706079.

Biomarker Predictors of Clinical Efficacy of the Anti-IgE Biologic Omalizumab in Severe Asthma in Adults: Results of the SoMOSA Study

Background: The anti-IgE monoclonal antibody omalizumab is widely used for severe asthma. This study aimed to identify biomarkers that predict clinical improvement during 1 year of omalizumab treatment. Methods: One-year open-label Study of Mechanisms of action of Omalizumab in Severe Asthma (SoMOSA) involving 216 patients with severe (Global Initiative for Asthma step 4/5) uncontrolled atopic asthma (at least two severe exacerbations in the previous year) taking high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists with or without maintenance oral corticosteroids. It had two phases: 0-16 weeks, to assess early clinical improvement by Global Evaluation of Therapeutic Effectiveness (GETE); and 16-52 weeks, to assess late responses based on ⩾50% reduction in exacerbations or mOCS dose. All participants provided samples (exhaled breath, blood, sputum, urine) before and after 16 weeks of omalizumab treatment. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 191 patients completed phase 1; 63% had early improvement. Of 173 who completed phase 2, 69% had reduced exacerbations by ⩾50% and 57% (37 of 65) taking mOCSs had reduced their dose by ⩾50%. The primary outcomes 2,3-dinor-11-β-PGF2α, GETE score, and standard clinical biomarkers (blood and sputum eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide, serum IgE) did not predict either clinical response. Five volatile organic compounds and five plasma lipid biomarkers strongly predicted the ⩾50% reduction in exacerbations (receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve of 0.780 and 0.922, respectively) and early responses (areas under the curve of 0.835 and 0.949, respectively). In an independent cohort, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry biomarkers differentiated between severe and mild asthma. Conclusions: This is the first discovery of omics biomarkers that predict improvement in asthma with biologic agent treatment. Prospective validation and development for clinical use is justified.

Molecular Pathways and Potential Therapeutic Targets of Refractory Asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory lung disease. Refractory asthma poses a significant challenge in management due to its resistance to standard therapies. Key molecular pathways of refractory asthma include T2 inflammation mediated by Th2 and ILC2 cells, eosinophils, and cytokines including IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13. Additionally, non-T2 mechanisms involving neutrophils, macrophages, IL-1, IL-6, and IL-17 mediate a corticosteroid resistant phenotype. Mediators including alarmins (IL-25, IL-33, TSLP) and OX40L have overlap between T2 and non-T2 inflammation and may signify unique pathways of asthma inflammation. Therapies that target these pathways and mediators have proven to be effective in reducing exacerbations and improving lung function in subsets of severe asthma patients. However, there are patients with severe asthma who do not respond to approved therapies. Small molecule inhibitors, such as JAK-inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies targeting mast cells, IL-1, IL-6, IL-33, TNFα, and OX40L are under investigation for their potential to modulate inflammation involved in refractory asthma. Understanding refractory asthma heterogeneity and identifying mediators involved are essential in developing therapeutic interventions for patients unresponsive to currently approved biologics. Further investigation is needed to develop personalized treatments based on these molecular insights to potentially offer more effective treatments for this complex disease.

Efficacy and safety of a proposed omalizumab biosimilar compared to the reference product in the management of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, equivalency clinical trial

Background and aims

Allergic asthma has a considerable burden on the quality of life. A significant portion of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma patients need omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin-E monoclonal antibody, as an add-on therapy. In this phase III clinical trial P043 (Zerafil®, CinnaGen, Iran) efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were compared with Xolair® (the originator omalizumab). The primary outcome was the rate of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations.

Methods

Exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT) results, spirometry measurements, immunogenicity, and safety were evaluated. Each subject received either medication with a dose ranging from 150 to 375 mg based on pre-treatment serum total IgE level (IU/mL) and body weight (kg) every two or four weeks for a duration of 28 weeks.

Results

Exacerbation rates were 0.150 (CI: 0.079-0.220) in the P043 group, and 0.190 (CI: 0.110-0.270) in the omalizumab group (per-protocol). The least squares mean differences of predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in the First second (FEV1) were -2.51% (CI: -7.17-2.15, P=0.29) and -3.87% (CI: -8.79-1.04, P=0.12), pre- and post-bronchodilator use. The mean ± SD of ACT scores at the screening and the last visit were 10.62 ± 2.93 and 20.93 ± 4.26 in P043 and 11.09 ± 2.75 and 20.46 ± 5.11 in the omalizumab group. A total of 288 adverse events were reported for the 256 enrolled participants. Among all, "dyspnea" and "headache" were the most reported ones. The overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.62) and serious adverse events (P=0.07) had no significant differences between the two groups. None of the samples were positive for anti-drug antibodies.

Conclusion

P043 was equivalent to omalizumab in the management of asthma in reduction of exacerbations. There was no significant difference in other efficacy and safety parameters.

Clinical trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05813470) and www.IRCT.ir (IRCT20150303021315N20).

Navigating biologic therapies in elderly asthma

The prevalence of asthma among the elderly population has witnessed a notable rise, presenting unique challenges in diagnosis and management. Biologic therapies, such as omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, have demonstrated efficacy in targeting specific pathways associated with severe asthma in elderly individuals. However, a significant research gap exists in the application of these therapies in elderly asthma patients. Despite the considerable size of the elderly asthma population and the social and economic burden that this specific demographic imposes on society, the available body of research catering to this group is limited. Notably, no RCTs have been expressly designed for the elderly across all asthma biologic therapies. Moreover, most RCTs have set upper age cutoffs, commonly 75 years old, and exclusion criteria for common comorbidities in the elderly, thus marginalizing this group from pivotal research. This underscores the crucial need for intentional inclusion of elderly participants in separately designed clinical trials and more researches, aiming to augment the generalizability of findings and enhance therapeutic outcomes. Given the distinct physiological changes associated with aging, there may be a concern regarding the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies in the elderly compared to non-elderly adults, posing a barrier to their use in this population. However, observational studies have shown similar benefits of these therapies in elderly individuals as seen in non-elderly adults. Other anticipated challenges related to initiating biologic therapy in elderly people with asthma including dosing consideration and monitoring strategies, which are important areas of investigation for optimizing asthma management will be discussed in this review. In summary, this review navigates the current landscape of biologic therapies for elderly asthma, offering valuable insights for various stakeholders, including researchers, healthcare providers, and policymakers, to advance asthma care in this vulnerable population. We propose that future research should concentrate on tailored, evidence-based approaches to address the undertreatment of elderly asthma patients.

Bioequivalence Between a New Omalizumab Prefilled Syringe With an Autoinjector or with a Needle Safety Device Compared with the Current Prefilled Syringe: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Healthy Volunteers

Omalizumab is an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody currently approved for the treatment of asthma, nasal polyps/chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and chronic spontaneous urticaria. Omalizumab is available as an injection in a prefilled syringe (PFS) with a needle safety device (NSD). New product configurations were developed to reduce the number of injections per dose administration, improve patient convenience and treatment compliance. The objective of this randomized open-label 12-week study was to demonstrate pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between (1) new PFS with autoinjector (PFS-AI), (2) new PFS-NSD configuration, and (3) current PFS-NSD configuration. Each new configuration was considered bioequivalent to the current configuration if the confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios (GMR) were contained in the 0.80-1.25 range for maximum concentration (Cmax), area under the concentration-time curve until the last quantifiable measurement (AUClast), and AUC extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf). Safety was assessed throughout the study. In total, 193 healthy volunteers were randomized at 1:1:1 ratio to omalizumab 1×300 mg/2 mL via new PFS-AI (n = 66), omalizumab 1×300 mg/2 mL via new PFS-NSD (n = 64), or omalizumab 2×150 mg/1 mL via current PFS-NSD (n = 63). Comparing new PFS-AI versus current PFS-NSD, the GMRs were: Cmax, 1.085; AUClast, 1.093; AUCinf, 1.100. Comparing new PFS-NSD versus current PFS-NSD, the GMRs were: Cmax, 1.006; AUClast, 1.016; AUCinf, 1.027. The 95% CIs for all GMR parameters were contained within the 0.80-1.25 range. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of omalizumab. Single-dose omalizumab administered as the new PFS-AI or new PFS-NSD was bioequivalent to the current PFS-NSD.

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.

Safety of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: An Analysis of Suspected Adverse Reactions Reported in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database

BACKGROUND

The management of uncontrolled severe asthma has greatly improved since the advent of novel biologic therapies. Up to August 2022, five biologics have been approved for the type 2 asthma phenotype: anti-IgE (omalizumab), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), and anti-IL4 (dupilumab) monoclonal antibodies. These drugs are usually well tolerated, although long-term safety information is limited, and some adverse events have not yet been fully characterized. Spontaneous reporting systems represent the cornerstone for the detection of potential signals and evaluation of the real-world safety of all marketed drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of safety data of biologics for severe asthma using VigiBase, the World Health Organization global pharmacovigilance database.

METHODS

We selected all de-duplicated individual case safety reports (ICSRs) attributed to five approved biologics for severe asthma in VigiBase, up to 31st August 2022 (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab). Descriptive frequency analyses of ICSRs were carried out both as a whole class and as individual products. Reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the measure of disproportionality for suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the study drugs compared with either all other suspected drugs (Reference Group 1, RG1) or inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β-agonists (ICSs/LABAs) (Reference Group 2, RG2) or with oral corticosteroids (OCSs) (Reference Group 3, RG3).

RESULTS

Overall, 31,724,381 ICSRs were identified in VigiBase and 167,282 (0.5%) were related to study drugs; the remaining reports were considered as RG1. Stratifying all biologic-related ICSRs by therapeutic indication, around 29.4% (n = 48,440) concerned asthma use; omalizumab was mainly indicated as the suspected drug (n = 20,501), followed by dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab. Most asthma ICSRs concerned adults (57%) and women (64.1%). Asthma biologics showed a higher frequency of serious suspected ADR reporting than RG1 (41.3% vs 32.3%). The most reported suspected ADRs included asthma, dyspnea, product use issue, drug ineffective, cough, headache, fatigue and wheezing. Asthma biologics were disproportionally associated with several unknown or less documented adverse events, such as malignancies, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis with omalizumab; alopecia and lichen planus with dupilumab; alopecia and herpes infections with mepolizumab; alopecia, herpes zoster and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis related to benralizumab; and alopecia with reslizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequently reported suspected ADRs of asthma biologics in VigiBase confirmed the presence of well-known adverse effects such as general disorders, injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, headache and hypersensitivity, while some others (e.g. asthma reactivation or therapeutic failure) could be ascribed to the indication of use. Moreover, the analysis of signals of disproportionate reporting suggests the presence of malignancies, effects on the cardiovascular system, alopecia and autoimmune conditions, requiring further assessment and investigation.

Tezepelumab in patients with allergic and eosinophilic asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease commonly driven by allergic and/or eosinophilic inflammation, both of which may be present in severe disease. Most approved biologics for severe asthma are indicated for specific phenotypes and target individual downstream type 2 components of the inflammatory cascade. Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody (immunoglobulin G2λ), binds specifically to thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), an epithelial cytokine that initiates and sustains allergic and eosinophilic inflammation in asthma. By blocking TSLP, tezepelumab has demonstrated efficacy across known asthma phenotypes and acts upstream of all current clinically used biomarkers. In a pooled analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY (NCT02054130) and phase 3 NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) studies, compared with placebo, tezepelumab reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks by 62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53, 70) in patients with perennial aeroallergen sensitization (allergic asthma); by 71% (95% CI: 62, 78) in patients with a baseline blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL; and by 71% (95% CI: 59, 79) in patients with allergic asthma and a baseline blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL. This review examines the efficacy and mode of action of tezepelumab in patients with allergic asthma, eosinophilic asthma and coexisting allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes.

Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Six biologic agents are now approved for patients with severe asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of licensed biologic agents in patients with severe asthma, including the recently approved tezepelumab.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify randomised controlled trials involving licensed biologics until 31 January 2023. We used random-effects meta-analysis models for efficacy, including subgroup analyses by individual agents and markers of T2-high inflammation (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide), and assessed safety.

RESULTS

48 studies with 16 350 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Biologics were associated with a 44% reduction in the annualised rate of asthma exacerbations (rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.62) and 60% reduction of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60), a mean increase in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 0.11 L (95% CI 0.09-0.14), a reduction in asthma control questionnaire by 0.34 points (95% CI -0.46--0.23) and an increase in asthma quality of life questionnaire by 0.38 points (95% CI 0.26-0.49). There was heterogeneity between different classes of biologics in certain outcomes, with overall greater efficacy in patients with T2 inflammation. Overall, biologics exhibited a favourable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that licensed asthma biologics reduce exacerbations and hospitalisations, improve lung function, asthma control and quality of life, and limit the use of systemic corticosteroids, with a favourable safety profile. These effects are more prominent in patients with evidence of T2 inflammation.

Airway remodelling in asthma and the epithelium: on the edge of a new era

Asthma is a chronic, heterogeneous disease of the airways, often characterised by structural changes known collectively as airway remodelling. In response to environmental insults, including pathogens, allergens and pollutants, the epithelium can initiate remodelling via an inflammatory cascade involving a variety of mediators that have downstream effects on both structural and immune cells. These mediators include the epithelial cytokines thymic stromal lymphopoietin, interleukin (IL)-33 and IL-25, which facilitate airway remodelling through cross-talk between epithelial cells and fibroblasts, and between mast cells and airway smooth muscle cells, as well as through signalling with immune cells such as macrophages. The epithelium can also initiate airway remodelling independently of inflammation in response to the mechanical stress present during bronchoconstriction. Furthermore, genetic and epigenetic alterations to epithelial components are believed to influence remodelling. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of the roles of the epithelium and epithelial cytokines in driving airway remodelling, facilitated by developments in genetic sequencing and imaging techniques. We also explore how new and existing therapeutics that target the epithelium and epithelial cytokines could modify airway remodelling.

Update on the Role of Fungus in Allergy, Asthma, and the Unified Airway

The united airway refers to the combined upper and lower airways and their interconnected pathophysiologic relationships. Inflammatory airway diseases (chronic rhinosinusitis, asthma, and so forth) have been linked to fungal species through type 2 immune responses. These type 2 immune responses involve the cytokines interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-13, and a myriad of other inflammatory processes that lead to a spectrum of diseases from allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis to chronic rhinosinusitis. Historically, these diseases have been managed primarily with corticosteroids but recent revelations in the molecular pathophysiology provide opportunities for more diverse treatment options for patients with uncontrolled disease.

[Asthma]

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects about 5% of the world's population and generates high health and social costs. Proper management of the disease requires a correct diagnosis, based on objective measures of functional impairment, as well as symptom control and assessment of the future risk of exacerbations.It has been estimated that 18% of asthma patients in Western Europe have severe asthma and approximately 50% of them have poor control. The severity of asthma is established based on the minimum maintenance treatment needs to achieve control. Asthma clinical practice guidelines recommend classifying severe patients into allergic asthma (T2); eosinophilic asthma (T2) and non-T2 asthma in order to establish the most appropriate treatment.In recent decades, new biological therapies have been developed that can be applied according to the phenotype and endotype of asthma, allowing for selective and personalized treatment. These phenotypes and endotypes can change over time and therefore, the identification of biomarkers capable of predicting the severity, the course of the disease and the response to a given treatment seems essential. A large number of biomarkers have been studied in asthma, but so far only a few can be readily used in routine clinical practice. The application of omics technologies (epigenomics, genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, etc.) for this purpose is still in the research phase.

Tezepelumab for Severe Asthma: One Drug Targeting Multiple Disease Pathways and Patient Types

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease of the airways, affecting many children, adolescents, and adults worldwide. Up to 10% of people with asthma have severe disease, associated with a higher risk of hospitalizations, greater healthcare costs, and poorer outcomes. Patients with severe asthma generally require high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and additional controller medications to achieve disease control; however, many patients remain uncontrolled despite this intensive treatment. The treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma has improved with greater understanding of asthma pathways and phenotypes as well as the advent of targeted biologic therapies. Tezepelumab, a monoclonal antibody, blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin, an epithelial cytokine that has multifaceted effects on the initiation and persistence of asthma inflammation and pathophysiology. Unlike other biologic treatments, tezepelumab has demonstrated efficacy across severe asthma phenotypes, with the magnitude of effects varying by phenotype. Here we describe the anti-inflammatory effects and efficacy of tezepelumab across the most relevant phenotypes of severe asthma. Across clinical studies, tezepelumab reduced annualized asthma exacerbation rates versus placebo by 63-71% in eosinophilic severe asthma, by 58-68% in allergic severe asthma, by 67-71% in allergic and eosinophilic severe asthma, by 34-49% in type 2-low asthma, and by 31-41% in oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma. Furthermore, in all these asthma phenotypes, tezepelumab demonstrated higher efficacy in reducing exacerbations requiring hospitalizations or emergency department visits versus placebo. In patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, who commonly have multiple drivers of inflammation and disease, tezepelumab may modulate airway inflammation more extensively, as other available biologics block only specific downstream components of the inflammatory cascade.

Adverse events of anti-IL-5 drugs in patients with eosinophilic asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence-based assessments

BACKGROUND

We aimed to clarify comprehensively the safety profiles of anti-IL-5 drugs and pinpoint potential safety concerns that may arise in their post-marketing phase.

METHODS

Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022. Additionally, we investigated the FDA AE Reporting System for post-marketing adverse event (AE) reports related to anti-IL-5 drugs. The outcomes fulfilled the proportional reporting rate criteria and the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network.

RESULTS

We included 24 published studies in our analysis. The anti-IL-5 treatment group showed an incidence of AEs comparable to the placebo group, and it exhibited a significantly lower frequency of serious AEs. Common AEs were asthma, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and bronchitis. The post-marketing data included 28,478 case reports associated with the suspect drugs and 75 suspect safety observations affecting 16 system organ classes. New suspect observations included incomplete therapeutic product effect, URTIs, and pulmonary mass in reports related to mepolizumab. Reports associated with mepolizumab and benralizumab also indicated issues with incorrect technique in device usage and product issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual anti-IL-5 drugs' safety profiles largely matched their product inserts. We identified issues like improper device usage, product issue, and URTIs as potential concerns for mepolizumab and benralizumab. Additionally, all anti-IL-5 drugs showed signs of incomplete therapeutic effects.

Early Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Biologics in Pediatric Allergic Diseases: Preliminary Results from a Prospective Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing interest in biologics for the management of allergic diseases, sparse real-world data are still available in the pediatric population. This study aimed to evaluate the early real-life efficacy and safety of omalizumab for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and Dupilumab for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODS

A prospective study enrolling children aged 6-18 years was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of biologic drugs at 16 weeks of treatment (T1). The effectiveness was measured using validated questionnaires (ACQ-5 for asthma, UAS7 for CSU, and EASI score for AD). Secondary outcome measures included reductions in inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosages, asthma-related hospitalizations/exacerbations, and quality of life (QoL) indicators (iNRS, sNRS, DLQI/cDLQI) for CSU and AD. Safety was expressed according to the descriptions of adverse events provided by EMA and FDA.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of eighteen children (mean age 12.9 ± 3.4 years). The omalizumab treatment significantly reduced ACQ-5 and UAS7 scores (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). In patients with asthma, decreased ICS dosage and hospitalization/exacerbation rates were observed. QoL parameters significantly improved in CSU and AD patients. No severe adverse events were reported for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings validate omalizumab and dupilumab as effective and safe therapeutic options for managing moderate-to-severe allergic diseases in children and adolescents.

Airways Type-2 Related Disorders: Multiorgan, Systemic or Syndemic Disease?

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has recently undergone a significant paradigm shift, moving from a phenotypical classification towards an "endotype-based" definition that places more emphasis on clinical and therapeutic aspects. Similar to other airway diseases, like asthma, most cases of CRS in developed countries exhibit a dysregulated type-2 immune response and related cytokines. Consequently, the traditional distinction between upper and lower airways has been replaced by a "united airway" perspective. Additionally, type-2 related disorders extend beyond respiratory boundaries, encompassing conditions beyond the airways, such as atopic dermatitis. This necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. Moreover, consideration of possible systemic implications is crucial, particularly in relation to sleep-related breathing diseases like Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome (OSAS) and the alteration of systemic inflammatory mediators such as nitric oxide. The trends in epidemiological, economic, and social burden are progressively increasing worldwide, indicating syndemic characteristics. In light of these insights, this narrative review aims to present the latest evidence on respiratory type-2 related disorders, with a specific focus on CRS while promoting a comprehensive perspective on the "united airways". It also introduces a novel concept: viewing these conditions as a multiorgan, systemic, and syndemic disease.

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

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

Safety of dupilumab in T2 airways conditions: focus on eosinophilia across trials and real-life evidence

INTRODUCTION

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-4 receptor alpha subunit, effectively blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 mediated pathways. Its introduction has represented a significant advancement in the treatment of severe asthma and other Type 2 (T2) conditions, including nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. To date, Dupilumab has demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

The safety profile of dupilumab has been extensively studied, especially for its effects on blood eosinophil count. Transient eosinophil increase during treatment is typically insignificant from a clinical point of view and related to its mechanism of action. Rare cases of hyper-eosinophilia associated with clinical conditions like eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) and hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) have been reported. Those cases are often related to the drug's steroid-sparing effect or the natural trajectory of the underlying disease rather than a direct cause-effect relationship with dupilumab.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of hyper-eosinophilia during dupilumab treatment requires comprehensive diagnostic work-up and strict follow-up monitoring for early detection of systemic disease progression in order to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of an effective treatment. This approach highlights the importance of a personalized treatment.

Omalizumab rescue therapy in refractory status asthmaticus

INTRODUCTION

Refractory status asthmaticus (RSA) is a severe, life-threatening form of asthma exacerbation that persists despite aggressive treatment with systemic corticosteroids, bronchodilators, and other supportive measures. Omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IgE, has been approved for treating severe allergic asthma and is effective in reducing the frequency of exacerbations and improving asthma control. Limited evidence exists regarding the use of Omalizumab in RSA, but some studies have suggested that it may have a role in its management.

CASE

A 39-year-old male with a decade-long history of asthma presented to the emergency department intubated and unresponsive to pharmacological therapy. The patient's IgE levels were elevated, and Omalizumab was administered after a comprehensive evaluation. The patient made a dramatic recovery and was successfully weaned off the ventilator within 24 h of receiving Omalizumab. He made an uneventful recovery and was discharged home on Omalizumab once every two weeks with regular follow-ups.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Per our literature search, only 3 cases have been reported where Omalizumab was administered to patients with RSA to wean them off ventilatory support successfully. This case study adds to the existing data on the potential benefits of Omalizumab in managing RSA. It suggests it may be a valuable treatment option for patients who do not respond to standard therapy. However, further research is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of Omalizumab in this population.

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.

Bei Mu Gua Lou San facilitates mucus expectoration by increasing surface area and hydration levels of airway mucus in an air-liquid-interface cell culture model of the respiratory epithelium

BACKGROUND

Bei Mu Gua Lou San (BMGLS) is an ancient formulation known for its moisturizing and expectorant properties, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We investigated concentration-dependent effects of BMGLS on its rehydrating and mucus-modulating properties using an air-liquid-interface (ALI) cell culture model of the Calu-3 human bronchial epithelial cell line and primary normal human bronchial epithelial cells (NHBE), and specifically focused on quantity and composition of the two major mucosal proteins MUC5AC and MUC5B.

METHODS

ALI cultures were treated with BMGLS at different concentrations over three weeks and evaluated by means of histology, immunostaining and electron microscopy. MUC5AC and MUC5B mRNA levels were assessed and quantified on protein level using an automated image-based approach. Additionally, expression levels of the major mucus-stimulating enzyme 15-lipoxygenase (ALOX15) were evaluated.

RESULTS

BMGLS induced concentration-dependent morphological changes in NHBE but not Calu-3 ALI cultures that resulted in increased surface area via the formation of herein termed intra-epithelial structures (IES). While cellular rates of proliferation, apoptosis or degeneration remained unaffected, BMGLS caused swelling of mucosal granules, increased the area of secreted mucus, decreased muco-glycoprotein density, and dispensed MUC5AC. Additionally, BMGLS reduced expression levels of MUC5AC, MUC5B and the mucus-stimulating enzyme 15-lipoxygenase (ALOX15).

CONCLUSIONS

Our studies suggest that BMGLS rehydrates airway mucus while stimulating mucus secretion by increasing surface areas and regulating goblet cell differentiation through modulating major mucus-stimulating pathways.

Promising treatment biomarkers in asthma

Asthma is a highly heterogenous disease which researchers over time have attempted to classify into different phenotypes and endotypes to improve diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Earlier classifications based on reaction to environmental allergens, age, sex and lung function have evolved, and today, the use of precision medicine guided by biomarkers offers new perspectives on asthma management. Identifying biomarkers that may reveal the underlying pathophysiology of the disease will help to select the patients who will benefit most from specific treatments. This review explores the classification of asthma phenotypes and focuses on the most recent advances in using biomarkers to guide treatment.

Efficacy of Biologics in Patients with Allergic Severe Asthma, Overall and by Blood Eosinophil Count: A Literature Review

Patients with uncontrolled, allergic severe asthma may be prescribed biologic therapies to reduce exacerbations and improve disease control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these therapies have differed in design, with varying results overall and by baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). This study describes published annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) reductions from RCTs in patients with allergic severe asthma, overall and by baseline BEC category. A literature search was performed to identify published phase 3 RCT data of US Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for severe asthma in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and confirmed sensitization to perennial aeroallergens. Analyses focused on AAER reduction versus placebo in the overall population and/or in those with an elevated or low BEC at baseline or screening. Baseline serum total immunoglobulin E levels varied between RCT populations. In patients with allergic severe asthma across all BEC categories, data were available for tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab and omalizumab only; the greatest AAER reduction was observed with tezepelumab. In patients with allergic severe asthma and BECs of ≥ 260 cells/µL or ≥ 300 cells/μL, AAER reductions were observed with all biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and omalizumab); the greatest AAER reduction was observed with tezepelumab and the smallest AAER reduction was observed with omalizumab. In patients with allergic severe asthma and BECs of < 260 cells/µL or < 300 cells/μL (regardless of historical BEC), an AAER reduction was observed with tezepelumab but not with benralizumab or omalizumab. Differential mechanisms of action may explain the differences in results observed between biologics. Among patients with allergic severe asthma, the efficacy of biologics in RCTs varied considerably overall and by BEC. Tezepelumab was the only biologic to demonstrate AAER reductions consistently across all subgroups. These differences can inform provider treatment decisions when selecting biologic treatments for patients with allergic severe asthma.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Controversies in Allergy: Are Biologic Treatment Responses in Severe Asthma the Same in Adults and Children?

The availability of biologic agents for patients with severe asthma has increased dramatically over the last several decades. The absence of direct head-to-head comparative data and relative lack of biomarkers to predict response can make it difficult to choose the right biologic medication for a given patient. Selecting a biologic agent for the pediatric population presents further challenges due to more limited approved biologic agents and fewer clinical trials in children. In addition, the outcome data that are currently available suggest that treatment responses for a given biologic may be different between adult and pediatric patients. To better understand this possible difference in treatment response, this review focuses on the available efficacy data for biologics evaluated in adult and pediatric patients with severe asthma in addition to other considerations when choosing a biologic agent. Finally, this review discusses how asthma phenotypes differ across age groups and their contributions to the responses to biologic treatment across age groups.

The evolving landscape of immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic conditions

Allergic conditions, such as asthma, chronic urticaria, atopic dermatitis (AD), and eosinophilic esophagitis, have long been treated with oral and topical steroids which resulted in negative off-target effects. However, newer biologic medications are increasingly being developed and approved for treatment of these conditions. These medications have a variety of mechanisms of action to target pathophysiology specific to these diseases. As biologics become more targeted, fewer off-target effects are seen improving tolerability for patients as well as expanded options for treatment of these conditions. This review discusses monoclonal antibody therapies (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, tezepelumab, and tralokinumab) including their safety and use in asthma, chronic urticaria, AD, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Efficacy of Biologics in Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma Stratified by Blood Eosinophil Count: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma have shown differential results by baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we describe the effects of biologics on annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) by baseline BEC in placebo-controlled RCTs. Exacerbations associated with hospitalization or an emergency room visit, pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Asthma Control Questionnaire score, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score were also summarized.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for RCTs of biologics in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and with AAER reduction as a primary or secondary endpoint. AAER ratios and change from baseline in other outcomes versus placebo were compared across baseline BEC subgroups. Analysis was limited to US Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics.

RESULTS

In patients with baseline BEC ≥ 300 cells/μL, AAER reduction was demonstrated with all biologics, and other outcomes were generally improved. In patients with BEC 0 to < 300 cells/μL, consistent AAER reduction was demonstrated only with tezepelumab; improvements in other outcomes were inconsistent across biologics. In patients with BEC 150 to < 300 cells/μL, consistent AAER reduction was demonstrated with tezepelumab and dupilumab (300 mg dose only), and in those with BEC 0 to < 150 cells/μL, AAER reduction was demonstrated only with tezepelumab.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of all biologics in reducing AAER in patients with severe asthma increases with higher baseline BEC, with varying profiles across individual biologics likely due to differing mechanisms of action.

Shared genetic architecture of blood eosinophil counts and asthma in UK Biobank

Rationale

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous disease strongly associated with type 2 inflammation, and blood eosinophil counts guide therapeutic interventions in moderate and severe asthma. Eosinophils are leukocytes involved in type 2 immune responses. Despite these critical associations between asthma and blood eosinophil counts, the shared genetic architecture of these two traits remains unknown. The objective of the present study was to characterise the genetic architecture of blood eosinophil counts and asthma in the UK Biobank.

Methods

We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of doctor-diagnosed asthma, blood eosinophil, neutrophil, lymphocyte and monocyte counts in the UK Biobank. Genetic correlation analysis was performed on GWAS results and validated in the Trans-National Asthma Genetic Consortium (TAGC) study of asthma.

Results

GWAS of doctor-diagnosed asthma and blood eosinophil counts in the UK Biobank identified 585 and 3429 significant variants, respectively. STAT6, a transcription factor involved in interleukin-4 signalling, was a key shared pathway between asthma and blood eosinophil counts. Genetic correlation analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between doctor-diagnosed asthma and blood eosinophil counts (r=0.38±0.10, correlation±se; p=4.7×10-11). As a validation of this association, we found a similar correlation between TAGC and blood eosinophil counts in the UK Biobank (0.37±0.08, correlation±se; p=1.2×10-6).

Conclusions

These findings define the shared genetic architecture between blood eosinophil counts and asthma risk in subjects of European ancestry and point to a genetic link to the STAT6 signalling pathway in these two traits.

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma: Pooled Analysis of the PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR Clinical Trials

Rationale: Tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma across a range of baseline blood eosinophil counts and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and irrespective of allergy status, in the phase 2b PATHWAY (Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of MEDI9929 [AMG 157] in Adult Subjects With Inadequately Controlled, Severe Asthma; NCT02054130) and phase 3 NAVIGATOR (Study to Evaluate Tezepelumab in Adults & Adolescents With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma; NCT03347279) trials. Objectives: To examine the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in additional clinically relevant subgroups using pooled data from PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR. Methods: PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with similar designs. This pooled analysis included patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma (PATHWAY, 18-75 years old; NAVIGATOR, 12-80 years old) who received tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The annualized asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks and secondary outcomes were calculated in the overall population and in subgroups defined by inflammatory biomarker levels or clinical characteristics. Measurements and Main Results: Overall, 1,334 patients were included (tezepelumab, n = 665; placebo, n = 669). Tezepelumab reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo by 60% (rate ratio, 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.48]) in the overall population, and clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations were observed in tezepelumab-treated patients with type 2-high and type 2-low disease by multiple definitions. Tezepelumab reduced exacerbation-related hospitalization or emergency department visits and improved secondary outcomes compared with placebo overall and across subgroups. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Tezepelumab resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations and improvements in other outcomes in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, across clinically relevant subgroups. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02054130 [PATHWAY], NCT03347279 [NAVIGATOR]).

Cytokine-targeted therapies for asthma and COPD

Asthma affects over 300 million people worldwide and its prevalence is increasing. COPD is the third leading cause of death globally. Asthma and COPD are complex inflammatory diseases of the airways in which impaired host defences lead to increased susceptibility to pathogens, pollutants and allergens. There is a constant interplay between host and the environment. Environmental exposures can alter the lung microbiome and influence the development of sensitisation by disrupting normal immunoregulation. The underlying airway inflammation in severe asthma is heterogeneous, with upregulation of type 2 cytokines in most cases but increased neutrophilic inflammation and activated T-helper 17 mediated immunity in others. COPD may also comprise several different phentoypes that are driven by different molecular mechanisms or endotypes. This disease heterogeneity is affected by comorbidities, treatments and environmental exposures. Recent intervention trials have shed light on the pathways beyond type 2 inflammation that can lead to beneficial outcomes versus potentially deleterious effects. We have made a great deal of progress over the last 10 years in terms of immunology and the pathophysiology of asthma and this has led to the development of novel treatments and major improvements in severe asthma outcomes. In COPD, however, no targeted treatments have demonstrated great improvements. This article reviews the mechanism of action and efficacy of the available biologics in asthma and COPD.

Evidence-Based Approach of Biologic Therapy in Bronchial Asthma

The emergence of biologic agents in the treatment of bronchial asthma has a wide impact on improving quality of life, reducing morbidity, and overall health care utilization. These therapies usually work by targeting specific inflammatory pathways involving type 2 inflammation and are particularly effective in severe eosinophilic asthma. Various randomized controlled trials have shown their effectiveness by reducing exacerbation rates and decreasing required glucocorticoid dosages. One of the relatively newer agents, tezepelumab, targets thymic stromal lymphoprotein and has proven its efficacy in patients independent of asthma phenotype and serum biomarker levels. This article reviews the pathophysiologic mechanism behind biologic therapy and offers an evidence-based discussion related to the indication, benefits, and adverse effects of such therapies.

Antitussive Use in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Omalizumab EXTRA Trial

Acute and chronic cough are common symptoms in patients with severe allergic asthma. Although asthma-related cough can be controlled by asthma-specific medications, both prescription and over-the-counter antitussives are often also necessary. The anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody omalizumab is an effective treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, but little is known about subsequent antitussive use patterns. This post hoc analysis examined data from the Phase 3 EXTRA study that included patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Baseline antitussive use was low overall (16/427, 3.7% for omalizumab and 18/421, 4.3% for placebo). Among patients with no baseline antitussive use (n = 411 omalizumab, n = 403 placebo), most patients (88.3% omalizumab, 83.4% placebo) reported not using antitussives during the 48-week treatment period. The percentage of patients using 1 antitussive was lower for patients treated with omalizumab than placebo (7.1% vs 13.2%), although the adjusted rate of antitussive use during the treatment period was similar for omalizumab and placebo (0.22 and 0.25). Non-narcotics were used more often than narcotics. In conclusion, this analysis found low use of antitussives in patients with severe asthma and suggests that omalizumab may have the potential to decrease antitussive use.

Characterization of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma in Japan: Analysis of Baseline Data from the PROSPECT Study

Purpose

Treatment patterns and patient characteristics are not well elucidated among Japanese patients with severe uncontrolled asthma who currently have various treatment options, including biologics. We analyzed baseline characteristics of patients who did/did not initiate biologic treatment in PROSPECT, a 24-month observational study.

Patients and Methods

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma were prospectively enrolled at 34 sites in Japan from December 2019 to September 2021. The enrolled population was divided based on initiation/non-initiation of biologic treatment within 12 weeks after enrollment. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, biomarker levels, and asthma-related treatment were assessed at enrollment.

Results

Of 289 patients meeting the enrollment criteria, 127 patients initiated biologic treatment (BIO group: omalizumab, n = 16; mepolizumab, n = 10; benralizumab, n = 41; and dupilumab, n = 60) and 162 patients did not (non-BIO group). The proportion of patients with ≥2 asthma exacerbations was higher in the BIO group than the non-BIO group (65.0% vs 47.5%). Patients receiving omalizumab had the highest frequency of allergic rhinitis (87.5% vs other BIOs: 40.0%-53.3%). Patients receiving benralizumab and dupilumab had the highest incidence of nasal polyps (benralizumab: 19.5%, dupilumab: 23.3%, other BIOs: 0.0%). The proportion of patients with blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL was higher with benralizumab (75.6%) than other BIOs (26.7%-42.9%).

Conclusion

This analysis of baseline data from the PROSPECT study is the first to clarify the characteristics of Japanese patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. BIOs were not necessarily prescribed to patients in whom they were indicated; however, for patients who received them, selection appeared to be made appropriately based on asthma phenotypes.

Factors Associated With Asthma Biologic Prescribing and Primary Adherence Among Adults in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

The availability of asthma biologics may not benefit all patients equally.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify patient characteristics associated with asthma biologic prescribing, primary adherence, and effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study of 9,147 adults with asthma who established care with a Penn Medicine asthma subspecialist was conducted using Electronic Health Record data from January 1, 2016, to October 18, 2021. Multivariable regression models were used to identify factors associated with (1) receipt of a new biologic prescription; (2) primary adherence, defined as receiving a dose in the year after receiving the prescription, and (3) oral corticosteroid (OCS) bursts in the year after the prescription.

RESULTS

Factors associated with a new prescription, which was received by 335 patients, included being a woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; P = .002), smoking currently (OR 0.50; P = .04), having an asthma hospitalization in the prior year (OR 2.91; P < .001), and having 4+ OCS bursts in the prior year (OR 3.01; P < .001). Reduced primary adherence was associated with Black race (incidence rate ratio 0.85; P < .001) and Medicaid insurance (incidence rate ratio 0.86; P < .001), although most in these groups, 77.6% and 74.3%, respectively, still received a dose. Nonadherence was associated with patient-level barriers in 72.2% of cases and health insurance denial in 22.2%. Having more OCS bursts after receiving a biologic prescription was associated with Medicaid insurance (OR 2.69; P = .047) and biologic days covered (OR 0.32 for 300-364 d vs 14-56 d; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large health system, primary adherence to asthma biologics varied by race and insurance type, whereas nonadherence was primarily explained by patient-level barriers.

Comparing bronchial thermoplasty with biologicals for severe asthma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) has shown favorable safety and efficacy in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but has not been directly compared to biological therapies.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches were performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, to retrieve RCTs of BT or FDA-approved biologicals against controls in patients with severe asthma. Six outcomes were analyzed: Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), the number of patients experiencing ≥1 asthma exacerbation, annualized exacerbation rate ratio (AERR), oral corticosteroid dose reduction (OCDR), and morning peak expiratory flow rate (amPEF). Random-effects, Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed, and therapies were ranked using P-scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs (15,547 patients) were included. Fewer patients treated with BT experienced ≥1 asthma exacerbation (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.45-0.98) compared to control. AERR of BT versus control was non-significant, but significant improvements in ACQ score (mean difference [MD] -0.41, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.20), AQLQ score (MD = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.30-0.77), amPEF and OCDR were found. No significant differences between BT and biologics were seen across indirect comparisons of all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of head-to-head comparative trials, this NMA suggests that BT is non-inferior to biologicals in terms of quality-of-life scores, and represents a promising alternative for patients with severe asthma.