Asthma Exacerbations and Triggers in Children in TENOR: Impact on Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Data examining associations between asthma exacerbations, triggers, and asthma-related quality of life (QOL) in children with severe/difficult-to-treat asthma are unavailable. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world data on relationships between asthma exacerbations, triggers, and QOL in children using data from TENOR (The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma Outcomes and Treatment Regimens), a 3-year observational study of patients with severe/difficult-to-treat asthma, including those aged 6 to 12 years. METHODS: QOL was examined using the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ) and defined exacerbations hierarchically (descending order of severity): hospitalization, emergency department visit, steroid burst, no exacerbation, using the highest value from months 6 and 12. One-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in PAQLQ domain scores at month 12 across exacerbation severity, total number of asthma exacerbations, and number of baseline asthma triggers. Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used to test the association between the number of triggers and exacerbation hierarchy. RESULTS: Greater severity of asthma exacerbations was associated with significantly (P < .001) lower mean PAQLQ domain scores, indicating poorer QOL. A higher number of asthma exacerbations was associated with significantly (P < .001) lower mean PAQLQ domain scores. PAQLQ scores were significantly lower with higher numbers of baseline triggers. Higher baseline number of asthma triggers was associated with greater severity (P = .05) and number of asthma exacerbations (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher number of asthma triggers at baseline was associated with greater asthma severity and number of asthma exacerbations and lower QOL in children with severe/difficult-to-treat asthma.

Omalizumab in children with uncontrolled allergic asthma: Review of clinical trial and real-world experience.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood. Allergen sensitization and high frequencies of comorbid allergic diseases are characteristic of severe asthma in children. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE mAb, is the first targeted biologic therapeutic approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma (AA) that remains uncontrolled despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medications. Since its initial licensing for use in adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older, the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of omalizumab have been demonstrated in several published clinical trials in children aged 6 to less than 12 years with moderate-to-severe AA. These studies supported the approval of the pediatric indication (use in children aged ≥6 years) by the European Medicines Agency in 2009 and the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016. After this most recent change in licensing, we review the outcomes from clinical trials in children with persistent AA receiving omalizumab therapy and observational studies from the past 7 years of clinical experience in Europe. Data sources were identified by using PubMed in 2016. Guidelines and management recommendations and materials from the recent US Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting are also reviewed.

A randomized multicenter study evaluating Xolair persistence of response after long-term therapy.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available to assist clinicians with decisions regarding long-term use of asthma therapies, including omalizumab. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the benefit and persistence of response in subjects continuing or withdrawing from long-term omalizumab treatment. METHODS: Evaluating the Xolair Persistency Of Response After Long-Term Therapy (XPORT) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal study that included subjects with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma receiving long-term omalizumab. Subjects were randomized by using a hierarchical dynamic randomization scheme to continue their same dose of omalizumab or withdraw to placebo and were then followed every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was any protocol-defined severe asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcome was time to first protocol-defined severe asthma exacerbation. Exploratory outcomes included changes in Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test scores. RESULTS: Significantly more subjects in the omalizumab group (67%) had no protocol-defined exacerbation than in the placebo group (47.7%); an absolute difference of 19.3% (95% CI, 5.0%, 33.6%) represents a 40.1% relative difference. Time to first protocol-defined exacerbation analysis revealed a significantly different between-group exacerbation pattern that was consistent with the primary analysis. Subjects continuing omalizumab had significantly better asthma control (mean [SD] change from baseline to week 52: Asthma Control Test score, -1.16 [4.14] vs placebo, -2.88 [5.38], P = .0188; Asthma Control Questionnaire score, 0.22 [0.66] vs placebo, 0.63 [1.13], P = .0039). Discontinuation of omalizumab was associated with an increase in free IgE levels and an increase in basophil expression of the high-affinity IgE receptor. No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSION: Continuation of omalizumab after long-term treatment results in continued benefit, as evidenced by improved symptom control and reduced exacerbation risk.

Improvement of sleep in patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria treated with omalizumab: results of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) report difficulty with sleep. METHODS: We examined the effect of omalizumab on sleep-related outcomes during 3-6 months omalizumab or placebo treatment and a 16-week follow-up period within three Phase III double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pivotal trials in CIU/CSU: ASTERIA I, ASTERIA II, and GLACIAL. Sleep quality was assessed in all three studies using sleep-related questions included in an electronic diary, the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale. Score changes from baseline in the treatment arms were compared with that in the placebo arm and adjusted for baseline score and weight. We also examined correlations of sleep scores at baseline, week 12, and week 24 and the slopes of change between sleep and itch and hive. RESULTS: Patients treated with omalizumab reported a larger reduction in sleep problems than those in the placebo arm; omalizumab 300 mg demonstrated the greatest improvement on all sleep components among all treatment arms. The largest reduction in sleep problems was reported within the first 4 weeks of therapy. After treatment discontinuation, sleep quality worsened. Sleep scores demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlation between them, and the change in sleep scores was associated with changes in itch and hives. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in sleep was reported after the first dose of omalizumab. Sleep continued to improve throughout the active treatment period. Patients receiving omalizumab 300 mg achieved greater improvement in sleep than those in other treatment arms. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01287117 (ASTERIA I), NCT01292473 (ASTERIA II), and NCT01264939 (GLACIAL).

Angioedema in the omalizumab chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria pivotal studies.

BACKGROUND: Angioedema, present in some patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU), may have a negative effect on patient quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient-reported angioedema and its management in the pivotal omalizumab studies (ASTERIA I, ASTERIA II, GLACIAL). METHODS: Enrolled patients with CIU/CSU remained symptomatic despite treatment with histamine1 (H1)-antihistamines at licensed doses (ASTERIA I, ASTERIA II) or H1-antihistamines at up to 4 times the approved dose plus H2-antihistamines and/or a leukotriene receptor antagonist (GLACIAL). All studies administered omalizumab (75, 150, or 300 mg in ASTERIA I and ASTERIA II; 300 mg in GLACIAL) or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for at least 12 weeks. Urticaria Patient Daily Diary entries were completed by patients and summarized. RESULTS: At baseline, angioedema prevalence was higher in GLACIAL (53.1%) than in ASTERIA I (47.5%) or ASTERIA II (40.7%). The mean proportion of angioedema-free days during weeks 4 to 12 was greater for patients treated with 300 mg of omalizumab than placebo in ASTERIA I (96.1% vs 88.2%, P < .001), ASTERIA II (95.5% vs 89.2%, P < .001), and GLACIAL (91.0% vs 88.7%, P = .006). Most patient-reported angioedema was managed by low-intensity interventions (doing nothing or taking medication). CONCLUSION: Treatment with 300 mg of omalizumab was efficacious in reducing patient-reported angioedema. Low-intensity interventions were generally used to manage angioedema episodes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01287117 (ASTERIA I), NCT01292473 (ASTERIA II), and NCT01264939 (GLACIAL).

Timing and duration of omalizumab response in patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available that describe response patterns in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU)/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) treated with omalizumab. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe response patterns by using data from the 3 pivotal omalizumab CIU/CSU trials. METHODS: Every 4 weeks, randomized patients received dosing with placebo or 75, 150, or 300 mg of omalizumab (ASTERIA I: n = 318, 24 weeks; ASTERIA II: n = 322, 12 weeks) or placebo or 300 mg of omalizumab (GLACIAL: n = 335, 24 weeks). Response was defined as well-controlled urticaria (weekly Urticaria Activity Score [UAS7] ≤ 6) or complete response (UAS7 = 0). RESULTS: Response rates were dose dependent and highest with 300 mg of omalizumab. Some patients responded early (before week 4). At week 12, a higher proportion of patients treated with 300 mg of omalizumab reported a UAS7 ≤ 6 (26.0% [75 mg of omalizumab], 40.0% [150 mg of omalizumab], 51.9% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 11.3% [placebo] for ASTERIA I; 26.8% [75 mg of omalizumab], 42.7% [150 mg of omalizumab], 65.8% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 19.0% [placebo] for ASTERIA II; and 52.4% [300 mg of omalizumab] and 12.0% [placebo] for GLACIAL) or a UAS7 = 0 (11.7% [75 mg of omalizumab], 15.0% [150 mg of omalizumab], 35.8% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 8.8% [placebo] for ASTERIA I; 15.9% [75 mg of omalizumab], 22.0% [150 mg of omalizumab], 44.3% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 5.1% [placebo] for ASTERIA II; and 33.7% [300 mg of omalizumab] and 4.8% [placebo] for GLACIAL). In patients receiving 300 mg of omalizumab with 24 weeks of treatment, median time to achieve a UAS7 ≤ 6 was 6 weeks (ASTERIA I and GLACIAL) and median time to achieve a UAS7 = 0 was 12 or 13 weeks (ASTERIA I and GLACIAL, respectively). Some patients who achieved well-controlled urticaria or complete response sustained response throughout the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Benefits of omalizumab treatment were evident early (before week 4) in some patients and persisted to week 24. Use of 300 mg of omalizumab demonstrated best results in controlling CIU/CSU symptoms.

The minimal important difference for measures of urticaria disease activity: Updated findings.

BACKGROUND: The Urticaria Patient Daily Diary (UPDD) is a validated patient-reported outcome that captures key measures of urticaria disease activity. OBJECTIVE: To update estimates of the minimal important difference (MID) for urticaria disease activity measures in the UPDD, including the weekly itch severity score, weekly number of hives score, weekly average size of largest hive score, and the composite measure of itch severity and number of hives over 7 days, or urticaria activity score 7 (UAS7). METHODS: A total of 975 subjects with chronic idiopathic urticaria from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies completed the UPDD and other patient-reported outcome assessments (the Dermatology Life Quality Index, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, the Chronic Urticaria Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, the EuroQoL-5 Dimension Questionnaire) multiple times. MIDs were estimated through a combination of distribution- and anchor-based methods. RESULTS: MID estimates ranged from 4.5 to 5.0 for the weekly itch severity score, 5.0 to 5.5 for weekly hives count score, 9.5 to 10.5 for the UAS7, and 4.0 to 4.5 for the weekly size of the largest hive score. CONCLUSION: This analysis provided confirmation of the previous MID estimates for the urticaria disease activity measures in the UPDD.

Changes in asthma control, work productivity, and impairment with omalizumab: 5-year EXCELS study results.

BACKGROUND: Asthma poses a significant disease burden worldwide. Current guidelines emphasize achieving and maintaining asthma control. OBJECTIVE: To describe longitudinal changes of asthma control and asthma-related work, school, and activity impairment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma treated with omalizumab and those who did not receive omalizumab in a real-world setting. METHODS: This study used 5 years of data from patients ages ≥12 years old with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma who were enrolled in the Evaluating Clinical Effectiveness and Long-term Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Asthma observational study. Asthma control was assessed with the Asthma Control Test for 5 years, and asthma-related work, school, and activity impairment was measured with the Work Productivity/Activity Impairment-Asthma questionnaire for the first 2 years. RESULTS: The percentage of patients treated with omalizumab (n = 4930) and with well-controlled asthma (Asthma Control Test score, >20) increased from 45% at baseline to 61% at month 60, and it was 49% (baseline) and 67% (month 60) for the non-omalizumab-treated cohort (n = 2779). For new starters to omalizumab (n = 576), the percentage with well-controlled asthma increased from 25% at baseline to 51% at month 6, and to 60% at month 60. Patients in the omalizumab-treated cohort and those in the non-omalizumab-treated cohort experienced a reduction in asthma-related work, school, and activity impairment. The amount of improvement in asthma control achieved and the reduction in asthma-related work, school, and activity impairment were similar, regardless of asthma severity. CONCLUSION: On average, patients in the Evaluating Clinical Effectiveness and Long-term Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Asthma observational study who initiated omalizumab experienced clinically significant improvement in asthma control, which was observed within 6 months and persisted for 5 years.

Similar Efficacy with Omalizumab in Chronic Idiopathic/Spontaneous Urticaria Despite Different Background Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Data from the 3 omalizumab pivotal trials in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) represent the largest database of patients reported to date with refractory disease (omalizumab, n = 733; placebo, n = 242). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare results from ASTERIA I and II, which included only approved doses of H1-antihistamine as background therapy based on regulatory authority requirements, to those from GLACIAL, which permitted higher doses of H1-antihistamines as well as other types of background therapy, in a post hoc analysis. METHODS: Efficacy data from the placebo, omalizumab 150-mg, and omalizumab 300-mg treatment arms of ASTERIA I and II were pooled and analyzed (n = 162 and n = 160, respectively). The 300-mg treatment arm analyses were compared with the analysis of data from GLACIAL (n = 252) using analysis of covariance models. The key efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in mean weekly itch severity score (ISS); other endpoints were also evaluated. Safety data were pooled from all 3 studies. RESULTS: Mean ISS was significantly reduced from baseline at week 12 in the pooled ASTERIA I and II omalizumab 150- and 300-mg treatment arms and in the GLACIAL omalizumab 300-mg arm. The weekly ISS reduction magnitude at week 12 was similar between the omalizumab 300-mg groups in the ASTERIA I and II pooled and GLACIAL studies. Similar treatment effect sizes were observed across multiple endpoints. Omalizumab was well tolerated and the adverse-event profile was similar regardless of background therapy for CIU/CSU. The overall safety profile was generally consistent with omalizumab therapy in allergic asthma. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab 300 mg was safe and effective in reducing CIU/CSU symptoms regardless of background therapy.

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria who remain symptomatic on H1 antihistamines: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

ASTERIA I was a 40-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as add-on therapy for 24 weeks in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) who remained symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment at licensed doses. Patients aged 12-75 years with CIU/CSU who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines were randomized (1:1:1:1) in a double-blind manner to subcutaneous omalizumab 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks followed by 16 weeks of follow-up. The primary end point was change from baseline in weekly itch severity score (ISS) at week 12. Among randomized patients (N=319: placebo n=80, omalizumab 75 mg n=78, 150 mg n=80, 300 mg n=81), 262 (82.1%) completed the study. Compared with placebo (n=80), mean weekly ISS was reduced from baseline to week 12 by an additional 2.96 points (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.71 to -1.21; P=0.0010), 2.95 points (95% CI: -4.72 to -1.18; P=0.0012), and 5.80 points (95% CI: -7.49 to -4.10; P<0.0001) in the omalizumab 75-mg (n=77), 150-mg (n=80), and 300-mg groups (n=81), respectively. The omalizumab 300-mg group met all nine secondary end points, including a significant decrease in the duration of time to reach minimally important difference response (⩾5-point decrease) in weekly ISS (P<0.0001) and higher percentages of patients with well-controlled symptoms (urticaria activity score over 7 days (UAS7) ⩽6: 51.9% vs. 11.3%; P<0.0001) and complete response (UAS7=0: 35.8% vs. 8.8%; P<0.0001) versus placebo. During the 24-week treatment period, 2 (2.9%), 3 (3.4%), 0, and 4 (5.0%) patients in the omalizumab 75-mg, 150-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups, respectively, experienced a serious adverse event. Omalizumab 300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks reduced weekly ISS and other symptom scores versus placebo in CIU/CSU patients who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines.

Incidence of malignancy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma treated with or without omalizumab.

BACKGROUND: The Epidemiologic Study of Xolair (omalizumab): Evaluating Clinical Effectiveness and Long-term Safety in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Asthma (EXCELS) assessed the long-term safety of omalizumab in a clinical practice setting as part of a phase IV US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing commitment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate long-term safety in omalizumab-treated and nonomalizumab-treated patients. Primary outcome measures focused on assessment of malignancies. METHODS: EXCELS was a prospective observational cohort study in patients (≥12 years of age) with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. There were 2 cohorts: omalizumab (taking omalizumab at baseline) and nonomalizumab (no history of omalizumab treatment). Primary outcomes included all confirmed, incident, study-emergent primary malignancies (malignancies), including and excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC); all malignancies were externally adjudicated. RESULTS: The omalizumab cohort had a higher proportion of patients with severe asthma compared with the nonomalizumab cohort (50.0% vs 23.0%). Median follow-up was approximately 5 years for both cohorts. Crude malignancy rates were similar in the omalizumab and nonomalizumab cohorts, with a rate ratio of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62-1.13) for all malignancies and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.71-1.36) for all malignancies excluding NMSC. Kaplan-Meier plots of time to first confirmed study-emergent primary malignancy were similar for the 2 treatment cohorts. Cox proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for confounders and risk factors, resulted in a hazard ratio (omalizumab vs nonomalizumab) of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.87-1.38) for all malignancies and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.83-1.59) for all malignancies excluding NMSC. CONCLUSION: Results from EXCELS suggest that omalizumab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of malignancy.