Real-World Effectiveness of Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma: Analysis of the KoSAR.

PURPOSE: Severe asthma is associated with high morbidity and healthcare utilization; however, treatment options for these patients are limited. This study aimed to determine the therapeutic effects of biologics in clinical practice. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 136 patients who received biologics for at least 4 months between September 2017 and July 2022 at 25 medical centers affiliated with the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR). The study evaluated the treatment effects, including acute exacerbation rates, maintenance of oral corticosteroid dosages, lung function, quality of life, blood eosinophil count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, by comparing measurements before and after 4 months of biologic treatment. Responses for each medication was evaluated based on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness score, and any adverse reactions were summarized. RESULTS: With the administration of biologics over the course of 4 months, there was a reduction in asthma acute exacerbations, a significant improvement in lung function, and a significant decrease in daily maintenance dose of oral steroid. Blood eosinophil counts decreased in the mepolizumab and reslizumab groups, while FeNO levels decreased only in the dupilumab group. The Asthma Control Test, Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics, and the EuroQol-visual analogue scale scores showed a significant improvement. Most patients (80.15%) responded to the biologic treatment. Meanwhile, non-responders often had chronic rhinosinusitis as a comorbidity, exhibited lower lung function, and required higher doses of oral steroids. No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Biologics are highly effective in Korean patients with Type 2 severe asthma, significantly reducing acute exacerbation rates and doses of oral corticosteroids, while also improving lung function. Therefore, it seems beneficial to administer biologics without any restrictions to patients exhibiting Type 2 severe asthma.

Single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics capture eosinophil development and identify the role of IL-5 in their lineage transit amplification.

The activities, ontogeny, and mechanisms of lineage expansion of eosinophils are less well resolved than those of other immune cells, despite the use of biological therapies targeting the eosinophilia-promoting cytokine interleukin (IL)-5 or its receptor, IL-5Rα. We combined single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics and generated transgenic IL-5Rα reporter mice to revisit eosinophilopoiesis. We reconciled human and murine eosinophilopoiesis and provided extensive cell-surface immunophenotyping and transcriptomes at different stages along the continuum of eosinophil maturation. We used these resources to show that IL-5 promoted eosinophil-lineage expansion via transit amplification, while its deletion or neutralization did not compromise eosinophil maturation. Informed from our resources, we also showed that interferon response factor-8, considered an essential promoter of myelopoiesis, was not intrinsically required for eosinophilopoiesis. This work hence provides resources, methods, and insights for understanding eosinophil ontogeny, the effects of current precision therapeutics, and the regulation of eosinophil development and numbers in health and disease.

Advancements in biologic therapy in eosinophilic asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma encompasses a spectrum of phenotypes often categorized into two groups- type 2 high (T2 high) and type 2 low (T2 low). T2 high includes atopic and eosinophilic presentations whereas T2 low is non-atopic, non-eosinophilic, and oft associated with neutrophilic inflammation. Eosinophilic asthma is often driven by IgE, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 and TSLP. This can lead to eosinophilic inflammatory response in the airways which in turn can be used as target for treatment. AREAS COVERED: The article will focus on biologic therapy that is currently being used in eosinophilic asthma management in mainly the adult population including clinical trials and co-morbidities that can be treated using the same biologics. A review on asthma biologics for pediatric population has been reviewed elsewhere. EXPERT OPINION: Biological therapy for asthma targeting the IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP pathways are shown to have benefit for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma, as exemplified in real-world studies. When choosing the right biological agent factors such as phenotype, comorbidities, and cost-effectiveness of the biologic agent must be taken into consideration.

Eosinophil granulocytes in chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases and CRSwNP: Function, immunological basis, and clinical significance.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophils play an important regulatory and immunomodulatory role in airway mucosa and have antiparasitic and antiviral properties as well as pro-inflammatory effects that may also cause persistence of inflammation with tissue remodeling. The number of eosinophils and the detection of specific mediators in biological samples from, e.g., blood, nasal secretions, and bronchial fluid can serve as biomarkers that reflect the underlying pathophysiology of certain diseases, predict treatment success, and detect therapy effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted to determine the immunologic basis, mode of action, clinical significance, and available evidence for therapeutic approaches using eosinophil-targeted monoclonal antibodies by searching Medline, Pubmed, and the national and international trial database (ClinicalTrials.gov) and guideline registries as well as the Cochrane Library. Human studies published on the topic in the period up to and including 10/2023 were considered. RESULTS: Based on the international literature and previous experience, the results are summarized, and recommendations are given. CONCLUSION: The important role of eosinophils in immunological processes in the airway mucosa is comprehensively analyzed and can serve as a basis for current and future treatment approaches.

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.

Comparative Impact of Asthma Biologics: A Nationwide US Claim-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic modifiers targeting type 2 (T2) airway inflammation are effective in reducing asthma exacerbation. However, real-world and comparative effectiveness studies remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare the real-world impact of anti-T2 asthma biologics. METHODS: In this retrospective, new user cohort study, we used the MarketScan, a Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, to identify adult patients with asthma who began to receive an anti-T2 biologic agent (anti-IL-5s, dupilumab, or omalizumab). We examined the influence of the biologic class on asthma exacerbation by comparing the average number of asthma exacerbation 1 year before and after biologic initiation. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to compare the effectiveness of these asthma biologics on reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations within 18 months of the initial administration of biologics while controlling for demographic variables, comorbidities, and asthma severity. RESULTS: We identified 5,538 asthma patients who were new to taking an anti-T2 biologic [mean age [±SD], 45.6 (12.78) years; 65.8% female). Asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation by 11% to 47%, particularly among patients with two or more asthma exacerbations in the year preceding biologic initiation (31% to 65% reduction). Biologics were especially effective in reducing asthma-related hospitalizations (44.6% to 60%). After adjusting for baseline demographics, asthma medication, and comorbidities, dupilumab was associated with a lower estimated mean number of asthma exacerbation per year and lower adjusted odds ratio for developing an asthma exacerbation relative to other biologics (50% to 80% less likely). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-T2 asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation in real-word settings. Evidence supports growing literature reporting that dupilumab might have a more favorable impact on asthma exacerbation relative to other asthma biologics.

The New Therapeutic Frontiers in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Biological Drugs.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a multifaceted disease characterized by a wide heterogeneity of clinical manifestations, endoscopic and histopathologic patterns, and responsiveness to therapy. From the perspective of an effective approach to the patient, the different inflammatory mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of EoE and biologics, in particular monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), targeting these pathways are needed. Currently, the most relevant is dupilumab, which interferes with both interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 pathways by binding IL-4 receptor α, and is the only mAb approved by the European Medicine Agency and US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of EoE. Other mAbs investigated include mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab (interfering with IL-5 axis), cendakimab and dectrekumab (anti-IL-13s), tezepelumab (anti-TSLP), lirentelimab (anti-SIGLEG-8), and many others. Despite the undeniable economic impact of biologic therapies, in the near future, there will be room for further reflection about the opportunity to prescribe biologic agents, not only as a last-line therapy in selected cases such as patients with comorbidities involving common pathways. Although recent findings are very encouraging, the road to permanent success in the treatment of EoE is still long, and further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of mAbs and to discover new potential targets.

Comparison of clinical remission criteria for severe asthma patients receiving biologic therapy.

BACKGROUND: The concept of remission on biological treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic target for patients with severe asthma, composed of 1. no chronic use of systemic steroids, 2. no exacerbations, 3. minimal symptoms, and 4. optimized lung function, for a significant time. However, the criteria for remission are not clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare different criteria for remission in subjects receiving biologicals for severe asthma. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of adult subjects who receive a stable regimen of a biological for severe asthma for at least 6-months. We compared the proportion of subjects who fulfilled different specific criteria in the four domains, as well as those who achieved different composite outcome measures of clinical remission. RESULTS: Of 39 subjects, 28 were females (71.8%), mean age 60.4. Twelve were current or past smokers (30.8%). Twelve had prior different biological treatment (30.8%), and 3/39 had more than one previous treatment (7.7%). Current biological included mepolizumab 12/39 (30.8%), dupilumab 11/39 (28.2%), benralizumab 10/39 (25.6%), omalizumab 5/39 (12.8%), reslizumab 1/39 (2.6%). Different specific criteria were achieved in 39-80% of subjects, being highest for no chronic steroid use and lowest for symptoms control and lung function. Overall remission was obtained by 20-41%, depending on definition, with significant variability in agreement between different sets of remission criteria (Cohen's kappa 0.33-0.89). CONCLUSION: Clinical remission is achievable in real-world severe asthmatics on biological therapies. The core criteria for remission should be better defined.

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

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective multicentre study is to describe the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα therapies and to compare their effectiveness. METHODS: We collected and analysed results separately for anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα therapies from January 2016 until December 2021 in multidisciplinary severe asthma units. We collected demographic and clinical data, treatment with previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents, and comorbidities. We compared the number of exacerbations and admissions to the hospital, daily oral corticosteroid intake, pulmonary function tests, and Asthma Control Test scores before and after 12 months of therapy. 261 patients were included: 176 patients in the anti-IL-5 group and 85 in the anti-IL-5Rα group. RESULTS: Both groups led to statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbations, hospital admissions, and visits to the Emergency Room. Although both groups showed a significant reduction in blood eosinophiliccount, we found a difference, although not significant, in the magnitude of reduction as benralizumab was able to decrease eosinophil counts to zero. Patients in the anti-IL-5 group achieved higher ACT scores after treatment, although this improvement was seen in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Rα biologics have shown similar effectiveness despite having different mechanisms of action. The anti-IL-5 group appeared to be better than benralizumab at improving ACT scores and FEV1/FVC and at reducing the number of inhalers. Although these differences were not statistically significant, it is not clear whether they may have clinical relevance and they might highlight the need for further head-to-head studies comparing these treatments.

Exploring the risk of infection events in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies: A rapid systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Introduction: Benralizumab, mepolizumab, and reslizumab are novel monoclonal antibodies approved for asthma, targeting eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab is directed against IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), while mepolizumab and reslizumab are directed against IL-5. The three drugs cause a reduction in eosinophils, but benralizumab also causes a cytotoxic effect on eosinophils and basophils. Recently, it has been reported that suboptimal responders to benralizumab presented exacerbations associated with concomitant infections and sputum neutrophilia and the incidence of infections was greater in patients receiving benralizumab compared to mepolizumab and reslizumab. For this reason, we wanted to explore potential differences in terms of infectious adverse events between the three different anti-IL-5 antibodies. Methods: We performed a rapid systematic review on PubMed up to April 28, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating benralizumab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab in patients with asthma. Included outcomes were the reporting of any respiratory tract infection and any emergency department (ED) or hospital admission for infection or asthma exacerbation. A Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis was performed with Cochrane RevMan 5.4 to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). A subgroup analysis for the different active treatments was performed. Results: From 163 references we included 21 studies reporting the results of 23 different RCTs for a total population of 9156 patients. All studies compared anti-IL-5 antibodies against placebo. Anti-IL-5 treatment resulted in non-significant differences compared to placebo in the odds for nasopharyngitis (OR = 0.90; 95 % CI from 0.76 to 1.07), pharyngitis (OR = 1.45; 95 % CI from 0.92 to 2.28), upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (OR = 0.97; 95 % CI from 0.82 to 1.15), rhinitis (OR = 1.01; 95 % CI from 0.71 to 1.44), pneumonia (OR = 0.56; 95 % CI from 0.10 to 2.01), and influenza (OR = 0.84; 95 % CI from 0.65 to 1.09). We observed significant reductions in the reporting of sinusitis (OR = 0.75; 95 % CI from 0.53 to 1.06), bronchitis (OR = 0.71; 95 % CI from 0.59 to 0.86), and ED or hospital admission due to asthma exacerbation for overall anti-IL-5 antibodies compared to placebo (OR = 0.59; 95 % CI from 0.40 to 0.88). We were not able to discriminate whether exacerbations were associated with infections or to increased sputum eosinophilia. From the subgroup analysis, we observed differences in directions and magnitudes of the effect size in the reporting of some events. Benralizumab was associated with increased odds of pharyngitis (OR = 1.56; 95 % CI from 0.97 to 2.52) and a similar trend was observed for mepolizumab in the reporting of rhinitis (OR = 1.85; 95 % CI from 0.72 to 4.78), both non-statistically significant. In terms of effect size, benralizumab also showed higher odds for bronchitis and pneumonia in comparison to mepolizumab and reslizumab (OR = 0.76, OR = 0.69, and OR = 0.60 for bronchitis and OR = 0.80, OR = 0.20, and OR = 0.45, respectively, all non-significant). Conclusion: Anti-IL-5 treatments might have different effects on the reporting of some infection events in patients with asthma. However, the evidence is limited by sample size and far than conclusive and suggest the need of future studies to evaluate the risk of infections in patients with asthma receiving anti-IL-5 treatments.

Elaborate biologic approval process delays care of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Background: mAbs (biologics) are indicated in patients with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. The process of prior authorization and administration of a biologic requires exceptional commitment from clinical teams. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the process of approval and administration of biologics for asthma and determine the most common reasons associated with denials of biologics and delays in administration. Methods: We examined the records of patients with asthma who were prescribed biologics from January 2018 to January 2020 at 2 centers, Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY) and Scripps Clinics (San Diego, Calif). Demographics, insurance information, and details on the approval process were collected. Results: After querying of electronic health records, the records of 352 and 70 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma were included from Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. Most patients at Montefiore (58.2%) were insured under Managed Care Medicaid (MC Medicaid), whereas most patients at Scripps (61.4%) had commercial insurance. The median times from prescription to administration of a biologic were similar: 34 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 18-63 days) and 34 days (IQR = 22.5-56.0 days) (P = .97) for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. However, the median approval time for Montefiore was 6 days (IQR = 1-20 days) and that for Scripps was 22 days (IQR = 10-36 days) (P < .001). Approval times for prescriptions requiring appeals were significantly longer than for prescriptions approved after the initial submission: 23 days versus 2.5 days and 40.5 days versus 15.5 days (for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively [P < .001 for both]). Conclusions: Lengthy appeals contribute to delays between prescribing and administering a biologic. Site-specific practices and insurance coverage influence approval timing of the biologics for asthma.

Refractory Bullous Pemphigoid Successfully Treated with Reslizumab: A Possible Novel Therapeutic Modality.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a chronic, autoimmune blistering disease that has concerning morbidity and mortality rates. Recently, several studies have focused on eosinophils due to their significant role in the pathogenesis of BP, considering that they are ubiquitous in the serum, tissue, and blister fluids of patients with BP. With this context, precision therapy that targets mediators of eosinophil activity could be a possible novel therapeutic strategy. Interleukin (IL)-5 is crucial for B-cell maturation, which consequently results in immunoglobulin production, and promotes eosinophil differentiation, proliferation, and activation. To our best knowledge, reslizumab has not yet been reported to treat BP. Herein, we report a case of steroid- and omalizumab-resistant BP treated successfully using reslizumab. Our data suggest that IL-5 could be a novel specific biologic target within the entire immunopathogenesis of BP, and reslizumab would be a novel therapeutic modality.

[Experience with dupilumab in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps]. / Opyt primeneniya dupilumaba v lechenii khronicheskogo rinosinusita s polipami.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps is the most severe form of inflammatory diseases of the paranasal sinuses, especially in combination with comorbid asthma. A new avenue for the personalized treatment of severe forms of eosinophilic inflammation are biologics based on humanized monoclonal antibodies. OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of targeted therapy in patients with CRS with nasal polyps and comorbid asthma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 19 patients selected for biological therapy according to international criteria were studied. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The first group included 10 patients treated with dupilumab. Dupilumab was administered subcutaneously 300 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Group 2 included 9 patients treated with reslizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma with comorbid CRS with nasal polyps. Reslizumab was administered intravenously 3 mg/kg body weight once every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. These patients constituted the comparison group. Both drugs are used in treatment of eosinophilic inflammation but have different biological targets. RESULTS: Comparative analysis of the dynamics of the main indicators characterizing the clinical course of CRS with nasal polyps and asthma (SNOT-22, control of asthma symptoms - ACT, the results of SCT of the paranasal sinuses according to the Lund-Mackay score) revealed a positive trend in patients of both groups, more pronounced in patients receiving dupilumab. CONCLUSION: Changes in CT of the paranasal sinuses, characterized by the Lund-Mackay score, the results of SNOT-22 and ACT are the most demonstrative and can be used to assess the results of treatment with biologics in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

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.

Biologics and Hypereosinophilic Syndromes: Knowledge Gaps and Controversies.

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are a heterogeneous group of disorders defined by blood and/or tissue hypereosinophilia and clinical manifestations attributable to the eosinophilia. Although various clinical subtypes of HES have been described, the general approach to therapy in all subtypes has focused on the reduction of blood and tissue eosinophilia to improve symptoms and halt disease progression. Until recently, this typically involved the use of corticosteroids and/or other immunosuppressive or cytotoxic drugs with significant toxicity. Whereas imatinib, the first targeted therapy approved for treatment of HES, has dramatically changed the prognosis of patients with primary (myeloid) forms of HES, it is ineffective in patients with other HES subtypes. For these nonmyeloid patients with HES, the development of eosinophil-targeting biologics (most notably, mepolizumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of HES) has been transformative. Nevertheless, important issues remain with respect to the efficacy and safety of these biologics in the treatment of the varied subtypes of HES. Moreover, with the increasing number of commercially available biologics with direct or indirect effects on eosinophils, questions related to the choice of initial biologic, potential reasons for biologic failure, and treatment options in the setting of incomplete response are becoming increasingly common.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment.

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.