Effectiveness of biologic switching in a real‐life, Belgian severe asthma cohort

Lucie Lafarge,Charles Pilette,Céline Bugli,Antoine Froidure

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/iid3.70023

2024-10-10

Immunity Inflammation and Disease

Abstract:In this observational study, we show that switching biologics in severe asthma results in a high proportion of controlled patients.

immunology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

SWITCHING BIOLOGICS FOR ASTHMA

M. Lopez,A. White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2022.08.643

2022-11-01

Abstract:Introduction Biologics are important tools in the treatment of patients with severe asthma. Some patients switch biologics during their clinical course, but little is known about precisely why patients switch biologics. Additionally, it remains unclear whether switching biologics is an effective management option in patients who have failed initial biologic therapy. Furthermore, it is unknown whether certain phenotypic characteristics such as the presence of nasal polyposis can predict the likelihood of success of switching to a given biologic. This study aims to address these gaps in our knowledge of biologics for asthma. Methods This was a retrospective observational study in which we reviewed the charts of 47 adults who were prescribed ≥2 biologics for asthma from 2015-2020. Results 78.7% of patients switched biologics due to ineffectiveness of the initial biologic. 12.8% of patients switched biologics due to issues related to insurance coverage. 6.4% of patients switched biologics due to non-adherence to the treatment regimen of the initial biologic. 2.1% of patients switched biologics due to an adverse effect to the initial biologic. Among patients who switched biologic therapy due to ineffectiveness of the initial biologic, 78.4% had a favorable response after switching biologics. Among patients with asthma and nasal polyposis who switched to dupilumab, 90.5% had a favorable response. Conclusion Most patients switch biologics due to ineffectiveness of the initial biologic. Most patients who switch biologics eventually have a favorable response to a different biologic. The presence of nasal polyposis in patients with severe asthma may predict the likelihood of success of switching to dupilumab.

immunology,allergy
Real-world super-response to biologics in severe asthma: A French monocentric retrospective cohort study

Solène Valéry,Stéfanie Habib-Maillard,Nicolas Roche

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmer.2023.101055

Abstract:Background: Biologics have dramatically improved outcomes in severe T2-high asthma. Although the identification of patients with the best response is key to understand the efficacy of these agents and select the best target populations, the definition and predictors of super-response are not fully established yet. Methods: This study aimed to describe super-response and to identify predictors of super-response to biologics in a French severe eosinophilic asthma cohort followed in a severe asthma tertiary care center between January 2005 and December 2020. Super-response was defined a priori as no oral corticosteroids intake and no exacerbations over 12 months. Collected data at baseline and after 12 months included asthma history, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, lung function, T2-biomarkers, baseline asthma-related treatments, and asthma control. Results: Among 157 patients assessed for eligibility, 108 were included, corresponding to 166 treatments with biologics. Overall response rate was 63.2 % (105/166) and super-response rate was 39.7 % (66/166). In omalizumab group (n = 67), lower dose of oral corticosteroids in maintenance was the only factor associated with super-response (p = 0.008). In the anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5R group (n = 99), absence or lower dose of oral corticosteroids in maintenance and absence of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis were statistically associated with super-response (p = 0.009, p = 0.001 and p = 0.02 respectively). Conclusion: In this real-life study in severe T2-high asthma patients, a lower dose or absence of daily oral corticosteroids and absence of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis were the only identifiable predictors of super-response to biologics. Physicians should not wait for maintenance oral corticosteroids to be required before considering the initiation of a biologic in severe asthma.
Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics

Arjun Mohan,Anna Y. Qiu,Njira Lugogo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mcp.0000000000001067

IF: 3.3

2024-03-22

Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine

Abstract: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.

respiratory system
Effectiveness and safety of biological therapy in patients with severe asthma in a real clinical practice

Galina R. Sergeeva,Alexander V. Emelyanov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26442/00403660.2024.03.202626

2024-04-16

Terapevticheskii arkhiv

Abstract:Aim. To assess effectiveness and safety of biological therapy in patients with severe asthma during 5 yr follow-up. Materials and methods. We recruited 129 adult outpatients (29% males) aged 18–81 yrs with severe asthma were followed up during 5 yrs and were examined for every 3–6 months. Eighty five patients were treated by conventional therapy (ICS/LABA ± tiotropium, montelukast, OCS) only and 44 pts additionally received biologicals (оmalizumab – 9 pts, мepolizumab – 8 pts, benralizumab – 11 pts, dupilumab – 16 pts). Pulmonary function tests were measured by dry spirometer (2120, Vitalograph Ltd., UK). Eosinophil count in blood was assessed by automatic haemoanalyser. Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide was measured by a chemiluminescence analyzer (LR4100; Logan Research, UK). Asthma control and quality of life were assessed by using Russian versions of ACQ-5 and SGRQ. Results. The use of biologicals led to a more significant reduction of exacerbations and OCS use, improvement of lung function, asthma control and quality of life, decrease of eosinophil and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide than conventional therapy of severe asthma (p0.05). Systemic side effects were not registered, frequency of local adverse reactions (edema, hyperemia and itching at injection site) was 14%. Conclusion. Long-term use of biologicals added to conventional therapy in patients with severe asthma is characterized by high effectiveness and favorable safety profile.

medicine, general & internal
Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort

Eve Denton,Mark Hew,Matthew J Peters,John W Upham,Lakmini Bulathsinhala,Trung N Tran,Neil Martin,Celine Bergeron,Mona Al-Ahmad,Alan Altraja,Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,Ruth Murray,Carlos Andrés Celis-Preciado,Riyad Al-Lehebi,Manon Belhassen,Mohit Bhutani,Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,Arnaud Bourdin,Guy G Brusselle,John Busby,Giorgio Walter Canonica,Enrico Heffler,Kenneth R Chapman,Jérémy Charriot,George C Christoff,Li Ping Chung,Borja G Cosio,Andréanne Côté,Richard W Costello,Breda Cushen,James Fingleton,João A Fonseca,Peter G Gibson,Liam G Heaney,Erick Wan-Chun Huang,Takashi Iwanaga,David J Jackson,Mariko Siyue Koh,Lauri Lehtimäki,Jorge Máspero,Bassam Mahboub,Andrew N Menzies-Gow,Patrick D Mitchell,Nikolaos G Papadopoulos,Andriana I Papaioannou,Luis Perez-de-Llano,Diahn-Warng Perng,Paul E Pfeffer,Todor A Popov,Celeste M Porsbjerg,Chin Kook Rhee,Nicolas Roche,Mohsen Sadatsafavi,Sundeep Salvi,Johannes Martin Schmid,Chau-Chyun Sheu,Concetta Sirena,Carlos A Torres-Duque,Laila Salameh,Pujan H Patel,Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,Eileen Wang,Michael E Wechsler,David B Price,ISAR LUMINANT Working Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/all.16178

IF: 12.4

2024-06-22

Allergy

Abstract:Background: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. Methods: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. Results: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. Conclusions: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.
Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma

Ghislaine Scelo,Trung N Tran,Tham T Le,Malin Fagerås,Delbert Dorscheid,John Busby,Mona Al-Ahmad,Riyad Al-Lehebi,Alan Altraja,Aaron Beastall,Celine Bergeron,Leif Bjermer,Anne S Bjerrum,Diana Jimena Cano-Rosales,Giorgio Walter Canonica,Victoria Carter,Jeremy Charriot,George C Christoff,Borja G Cosio,Eve Denton,Maria Jose Fernandez-Sanchez,João A Fonseca,Peter G Gibson,Celine Goh,Liam G Heaney,Enrico Heffler,Mark Hew,Takashi Iwanaga,Rohit Katial,Mariko S Koh,Piotr Kuna,Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,Lauri Lehtimäki,Bassam Mahboub,Neil Martin,Hisako Matsumoto,Andrew N Menzies-Gow,Nikolaos G Papadopoulos,Pujan Patel,Luis Perez-De-Llano,Matthew Peters,Paul E Pfeffer,Todor A Popov,Celeste M Porsbjerg,Chin K Rhee,Mohsen Sadatsafavi,Camille Taillé,Carlos A Torres-Duque,Ming-Ju Tsai,Charlotte S Ulrik,John W Upham,Anna von Bülow,Eileen Wang,Michael E Wechsler,David B Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.05.016

Abstract:Background: Biologic effectiveness is often assessed as response, a term that eludes consistent definition. Identifying those most likely to respond in real-life has proven challenging. Objective: To explore definitions of biologic responders in adults with severe asthma and investigate patient characteristics associated with biologic response. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 21 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry. Changes in four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1-year period before and after biologic initiation in patients with a predefined level of prebiologic impairment. Responder cutoffs were 50% or greater reduction in exacerbation rate, 50% or greater reduction in long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose, improvement in one or more category in asthma control, and 100 mL or greater improvement in FEV1. Responders were defined using single and multiple domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic initiation response was examined by multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 2,210 patients were included. Responder rate ranged from 80.7% (n = 566 of 701) for exacerbation response to 10.6% (n = 9 of 85) for a four-domain response. Many responders still exhibited significant impairment after biologic initiation: 46.7% (n = 206 of 441) of asthma control responders with uncontrolled asthma before the biologic still had incompletely controlled disease postbiologic initiation. Predictors of response were outcome-dependent. Lung function responders were more likely to have higher prebiologic FeNO (odds ratio = 1.20 for every 25-parts per billion increase), and shorter asthma duration (odds ratio = 0.81 for every 10-year increase in duration). Higher blood eosinophil count and the presence of type 2-related comorbidities were positively associated with higher odds of meeting long-term oral corticosteroid, control, and lung function responder criteria. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the multimodal nature of response, showing that many responders experience residual symptoms after biologic initiation and that predictors of response vary according to the outcome assessed.
Biologics in T2 Severe Asthma: Unveiling Different Effectiveness by Real-World Indirect Comparison

Elisa Riccardi,Giuseppe Guida,Sonia Garino,Francesca Bertolini,Vitina Carriero,Mattia Brusamento,Stefano Pizzimenti,Fabiana Giannoccaro,Erica Falzone,Elisa Arrigo,Stefano Levra,Fabio Luigi Massimo Ricciardolo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164750

2024-08-13

Abstract:Background: Indirect comparison among biologics in severe asthma (SA) is a challenging but desirable goal for clinicians in real life. The aim of the study is to define characteristics of a biologic-treated T2-driven-SA population and to evaluate the effectiveness of biologic treatments in a real-world setting by variation in intra/inter-biologic parameters in an up to 4-year follow-up. Methods: Demographic, clinical, functional, and biological characteristics were evaluated retrospectively in 104 patients recruited until July 2022 at baseline (T0) and over a maximum of 4 years (T4) of biologic therapy (omalizumab/OmaG = 41, from T0 to T4, mepolizumab/MepoG = 26, from T0 to T4, benralizumab/BenraG = 18, from T0 to T2, and dupilumab/DupiG = 19, from T0 to T1). Variations of parameters using means of paired Delta were assessed. Results: At baseline, patients had high prevalence of T2-driven comorbidities, low asthma control test (ACT mean 17.65 ± 4.41), impaired pulmonary function (FEV1 65 ± 18 %pred), frequent exacerbations/year (AEs 3.5 ± 3), and OCS dependence (60%). DupiG had lower T2 biomarkers/comorbidities and AEs, and worse FEV1 (57 ± 19 %pred) compared to other biologics (p < 0.05). All biologics improved ACT, FEV1%, FVC%, AEs rate, and OCS use. FEV1% improved in MepoG and BenraG over the minimal clinically important difference and was sustained over 4 years in OmaG and MepoG. A significant RV reduction in OmaG (T4) and DupiG (T1), and BenraG normalization (T2) of airflow limitation were found. We observed through inter-biologic parameters pair delta variation comparison a significant nocturnal awakenings reduction in BenraG vs. OmaG/MepoG, and neutrophils reduction in BenraG/DupiG vs. OmaG. Conclusions: Indirect comparison among biologics unveils clinical and functional improvements that may mark a different effectiveness. These results may highlight the preference of a single biologic compared to another with regard to specific treatable traits.
How I do it. Choosing the right biologic for the right patient with severe asthma

Simon Couillard,David J Jackson,Ian D Pavord,Michael E Wechsler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.08.045

IF: 9.6

2024-09-06

Chest

Abstract:In this new instalment of the How I Do It: Severe Asthma series, we tackle the clinical conundrum of choosing the right biologic for the right patient with severe asthma. With 6 biologics now approved for use in this area comprising 4 different targeting strategies (anti-immunoglobulin E, omalizumab; anti-interleukin (IL)-5/5receptor, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab; anti-IL-4receptor, dupilumab; anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin, tezepelumab), this question is increasingly complex. Recognising that there is no head-to-head trial comparing biologics, we base our review on the expected effects of inhibiting different aspects of type-2 airway inflammation, supported whenever possible by clinical trial and real-world data. We use four variations of a case of severe uncontrolled asthma to develop concepts and considerations introduced in the previous Work-up of severe asthma installment and discuss pregnancy-, biomarker-, comorbidity-, and corticosteroid-dependency-related considerations when choosing a biologic. The related questions of deciding when, why, and how to switch from one biologic to another are also discussed. Overall, we consider that the choice between biologics should be based on the available clinical trial data for the desired efficacy outcomes; the biomarker profile of the patient; safety profiles (e.g., when pregnancy is considered); and opportunities to target two comorbidities with one biologic. Using systemic and airway biomarkers (blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO)) and other phenotypic characteristics, we suggest a framework to facilitate therapeutic decision-making. Post hoc studies and new comparative studies are urgently needed to test this framework and determine whether it allows us to make other clinically useful predictions.
Biologics in severe asthma: the role of real-world evidence from registries

Giovanni Paoletti,Jack Pepys,Marta Casini,Danilo Di Bona,Enrico Heffler,Celine Y.Y. Goh,David B. Price,Giorgio Walter Canonica,Paoletti,G.,Pepys,J.,Casini,M.,Di Bona,D.,Heffler,E.,Goh,C. Y. Y.,Price,D. B.,Canonica,G. W.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0278-2021

IF: 7.5

2022-06-09

European Respiratory Review

Abstract:Asthma is one of the most common noncommunicable diseases; in the majority of patients it is well controlled with inhaled bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids, but the management of severe asthma has been a significant challenge historically. The introduction of novel biologic drugs in the past few decades has revolutionised the field, presenting physicians with a variety of biologic drugs with different mechanisms for the treatment of severe asthma. It is of crucial importance to evaluate the effectiveness of these drugs by following their "real-life" effectiveness rather than relying solely on their efficacy, established in carefully designed clinical trials, which therefore do not necessarily match the profile of the real-life patient. Understanding the actual effectiveness of the specific drugs in real-life patients is a crucial part of tailoring the right drugs to the right patients. Registries serve as an important tool in obtaining real-life evidence, since they are in effect observational studies, following the entire patient population.

respiratory system
Biologics in asthma: difficulties and drawbacks

Jean Bousquet,Raphael Chiron,Marc Humbert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1517/14712590802496928

2008-11-06

Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Biologics have become an increasingly important class of therapeutic compounds in a variety of immune and/or inflammatory diseases. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma represent a significant unmet need.METHODS: This review gives some examples of the complex use of biologics in asthma.RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is very difficult to predict the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma and only one monoclonal antibody to date has been found to be effective and approved by both the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for the treatment of difficult allergic asthma. New pathways may prove to be of importance for the development of biologics. Biologics are not devoid of side effects, which can, although not always, be predicted from their mechanism of action. These include hypersensitivity reactions, which need to be better understood to prevent and control them. Finally, biologics should be cost-effective. This review gives some examples of the complex use of biologics in asthma.

medicine, research & experimental,biotechnology & applied microbiology
Stepping down biologics in asthma: is it time to challenge the status quo?

Khurana,S.,Georas,S. N.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01168-2024

IF: 24.3

2024-08-23

European Respiratory Journal

Abstract:Extract Rapid advances in biologic therapy have truly revolutionised the management of severe asthma in the past decade. The efficacy of these drugs has been undeniably demonstrated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies, with reassuring safety data. Many patients with severe asthma have had their lives transformed after starting a biologic, which is an extremely gratifying result. Questions remain, however, about the optimal long-term management of patients with severe asthma treated with biologics. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends assessing response to biologic therapy after 4 months of treatment and to consider switching to a different biologic in patients with partial or no clinical response [1, 2]. In patients with good clinical response and controlled asthma, stepwise reduction in background controller therapy is recommended, starting with maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS).

respiratory system
Switching of biological therapy to dupilumab in comorbid patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP

Cecilia Rosso,Eugenio De Corso,Valerio Conti,Letizia Nitro,Alberto Maria Saibene,Elena Parazzini,Rocco Rinaldo,Sabrina De Pascalis,Flavio Arnone,Stefano Centanni,Claudio Montuori,Leandro Maria D’Auria,Giovanni Felisati,Carlotta Pipolo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08461-y

2024-02-12

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Abstract:Abstract Purpose Nowadays, several efficacious biologic drugs are used for severe asthma with or without chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, it has been observed that not all comorbid patients (asthma/CRSwNP) receiving biologic treatment for asthma experience satisfactory control of both conditions equally. Methods We selected 20 patients who had both severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP under biological treatment with benralizumab, omalizumab or mepolizumab with adequate control of asthma but inadequate control of nasal symptoms. Patients were switched to dupilumab and outcomes were evaluated at baseline (T0), at 3 months (T1), at 6 months (T2), at 12 months (T3) and finally at 18 months (T4). Data were collected at each time point including blood tests measuring eosinophil levels and total IgE, SNOT22, ACT, NPS score, rhinomanometry, olfactory testing, and nasal cytology. Results The results showed an overall improvement in all the outcomes. Peripheral eosinophilia was observed consistently with existing literature. All patients registered an improvement in sinonasal outcomes, while only one patient had a worsening of asthma. Three patients interrupted the therapy due to various causes: poor asthma control, onset of psoriasis and thrombocytopenia. Conclusions The response to a biologic treatment for CRSwNP control may be heterogenous and it seems that patients may benefit from switching improving control in equal measure in the upper and lower airway. Further studies to explore the endotype/phenotype which best fits with each biologic are mandatory to personalize the therapy.

otorhinolaryngology
Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study

Anne-Noelle Frix,Liam G Heaney,Barbro Dahlén,Florin Mihaltan,Svetlana Sergejeva,Sanja Popović-Grle,Vratislav Sedlak,Lauri Lehtimäki,Arnaud Bourdin,Stephanie Korn,Eleftherios Zervas,Zsuzsanna Csoma,Dora Lúðvíksdóttir,Marcus Butler,Giorgio Walter Canonica,Ineta Grisle,Kristina Bieksiene,Anneke Ten Brinke,Piotr Kuna,Claudia Chaves Loureiro,Natalia M Nenasheva,Zorica Lazic,Sabina Škrgat,David Ramos-Barbon,Joerg Leuppi,Bilun Gemicioglu,Apostolos Bossios,Celeste M Porsbjerg,Elisabeth H Bel,Ratko Djukanovic,Renaud Louis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00273-2022

2022-10-24

Abstract:Introduction: Treatment with biologics for severe asthma is informed by international and national guidelines and defined by national regulating bodies, but how these drugs are used in real-life is unknown. Materials and methods: The European Respiratory Society (ERS) SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration conducted a three-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on seven end-points: biologics availability and financial issues, prescription and administration modalities, inclusion criteria, continuation criteria, switching biologics, combining biologics and evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. The survey was then sent to SHARP National Leads of 28 European countries. Finally, selected questions were submitted to a broad group of 263 asthma experts identified by national societies. Results: Availability of biologics varied between countries, with 17 out of 28 countries having all five existing biologics. Authorised prescribers (pulmonologists and other specialists) also differed. In-hospital administration was the preferred deliverance modality. While exacerbation rate was used as an inclusion criterion in all countries, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for interleukin-5 (IL-5)-targeted and IL-4/IL-13-targeted biologics, with varying thresholds. There were no formally established criteria for continuing biologics. Reduction in exacerbations represented the most important benchmark, followed by improvement in asthma control and quality of life. Only 73% (191 out of 263) of surveyed clinicians assessed their patients for corticosteroid-induced toxicity. Conclusion: Our study reveals important heterogeneity in the use of asthma biologics across Europe. To what extent this impacts on clinical outcomes relevant to patients and healthcare services needs further investigation.
The Response to Biologics is Better in Patients with Severe Asthma Than in Patients with Asthma–COPD Overlap Syndrome

Luis Pérez de Llano,David Dacal Rivas,Nuria Marina Malanda,Vicente Plaza Moral,José Antonio Gullón Blanco,Mariana Muñoz-Esquerre,Ismael García-Moguel,Rocío M Díaz Campos,Eva Martínez-Moragón,Alicia Harbenau Mena,Borja G Cosío,Alicia Padilla Galo,Carolina Cisneros Serrano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s338467

2022-03-01

Journal of Asthma and Allergy

Abstract:Although biologics have demonstrated to be effective in T2-high asthma patients, there is little experience with these drugs in asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of biologics in these two conditions. We included 318 patients (24 ACO and 297 asthma) treated with monoclonal antibodies and followed for at least 12 months. Omalizumab was the most frequently employed biologic agent both in patients with ACO and asthma. Asthma control test (ACT) scores after at least 12 months of biologic therapy were not significantly different between groups. The percentage of patients with ≥1 exacerbation and ≥1 corticosteroid burst was significantly higher in ACO patients (70.8 vs 27.3 and 83.3% vs 37.5%, respectively), whereas the percentage of "controlled" patients (with no exacerbations, no need for corticosteroids and ACT ≥ 20) was significantly lower (16.7% vs 39.7%). In conclusion, this report suggests that patients with ACO treated with biologics reach worse outcomes than asthma patients.

immunology,allergy,respiratory system
Comparative Impact of Asthma Biologics – A Nationwide US Claim-Based Analysis

Taha Al-Shaikhly,Matthew R. Norris,Emily H. Dennis,Guodong Liu,Timothy J. Craig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.02.029

IF: 11.022

2024-02-29

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice

Abstract: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 were started on 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 pre- and post-biologic initiation. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to compare the effectiveness of these asthma biologics on reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations within 18-month of initial administration of biologics while controlling for demographic variables, comorbidities, and asthma severity. Results We identified 5,538 asthma patients who were initiated on an anti-T2 biologic [mean age (±SD); 45.6 (12.78) years; % females, 65.8%). Asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation by 11-47%, particularly among patients with 2+ asthma exacerbations in the year preceding biologic initiation (31-65% reduction). Biologics were especially effective in reducing asthma-related hospitalizations (44.6-60%). After adjusting for baseline demographics, asthma medication, and co-morbidities, dupilumab was associated with a lower estimated mean number of asthma exacerbation per year and lower adjusted OR for developing asthma exacerbation relative to other biologics (50-80% less likely). Conclusion Anti-T2 asthma biologics reduced asthma exacerbation in real-word settings. Evidence supports growing literature that dupilumab might have a more favorable impact on asthma exacerbation relative to other asthma biologics.

immunology,allergy
Biologics in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Three-Year Follow-Up in a SANI Single Center

Paolo Solidoro,Stefania Nicola,Irene Ridolfi,Giorgio Walter Canonica,Francesco Blasi,Pierluigi Paggiaro,Enrico Heffler,Diego Bagnasco,Filippo Patrucco,Fulvia Ribolla,Caterina Bucca,Giovanni Rolla,Carlo Albera,Luisa Brussino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10020200

IF: 4.757

2022-01-18

Biomedicines

Abstract:Introduction: Biologic drugs have dramatically improved severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of biological therapy in SEA in a real-life setting and to identify the predictors for switching to another biological drug in patients with poor asthma control. The outcomes for efficacy were decreased annual exacerbations (AE) and improved asthma control test (ACT). Methods: In 90 SEA patients being treated with a biological drug, clinical examination, ACT, blood eosinophils count and spirometry were assessed before (T0) and after 6 (T1), 12 (T2), 24 (T3) and 36 (T4) months from the start of biological therapy. Patients were considered responders (R) or non-responders (NR) to biologics depending on whether or not they had less than two AE and a 20% increase in the ACT after 12 months of treatment. Results: 75% of the patients were R, 25% NR. In R patients, biological therapy add-on was followed by significant improvement in AE and ACT throughout the whole follow-up period. The percentage of patients on oral corticosteroids (OCS) dropped from 40% to 12%. By contrast, the NR patients were shifted to another biological drug after 12 months of therapy, as they still had high AE and nearly unchanged ACT; 40% of them still needed OCS treatment. The predictors of switching to another biological drug were three or more AE, ACT below 17, nasal polyposis and former smoking (p < 0.05). In NR, the shift to another biological drug was followed by a significant decrease in AE and an increase in the ACT. Discussion: This real-life study confirms the long-term efficacy of biologics in most SEA patients and indicates that even in non-responders to a first biological drug, it is worth trying a second one. It is hoped that the availability of additional biologics with different targets will help improve the personalization of SEA therapy.
Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma

Luis Perez-de-Llano,Ghislaine Scelo,G Walter Canonica,Wenjia Chen,William Henley,Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,Matthew J Peters,Paul E Pfeffer,Trung N Tran,Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,Todor A Popov,Mohsen Sadatsafavi,Mark Hew,Jorge Máspero,Peter G Gibson,George C Christoff,J Mark Fitzgerald,Carlos A Torres-Duque,Celeste M Porsbjerg,Nikolaos G Papadopoulos,Andriana I Papaioannou,Enrico Heffler,Takashi Iwanaga,Mona Al-Ahmad,Piotr Kuna,João A Fonseca,Riyad Al-Lehebi,Chin Kook Rhee,Mariko Siyue Koh,Borja G Cosio,Diahn-Warng Perng Steve,Bassam Mahboub,Andrew N Menzies-Gow,David J Jackson,John Busby,Liam G Heaney,Pujan H Patel,Eileen Wang,Michael E Wechsler,Alan Altraja,Lauri Lehtimäki,Arnaud Bourdin,Leif Bjermer,Lakmini Bulathsinhala,Victoria Carter,Ruth Murray,Aaron Beastall,Eve Denton,David B Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2023.12.023

Abstract:Background: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. Objective: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. Methods: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). Results: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. Conclusion: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. Trial registration: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).
Optimizing severe asthma care by consulting an asthma expertise team for biologics

Linders,P.,Eskes,E.,Schaminee,D.,Hilvering,B.,Weersink,E.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2024.pa4488

IF: 24.3

2024-11-01

European Respiratory Journal

Abstract:Background: Biologics target specific type 2-inflammatory pathways in people with severe asthma (PwSA) and reduce asthma attacks (AA) as well as oral corticosteroids maintenance dose (OCSm). Biologic indication is complex. Online consultation of an Asthma Expertise Team (AETc) can improve biologic indication and select the best fit. Objectives: To assess the impact of AETc on 1) medical costs associated with biologic indication for PwSA, 2) biologic indication and the extent in asthma remission in PwSA. Methods: Data of 389 PwSA indicated for biologics, who were discussed between 2016 and 2021 by the local AETc or online by the AETc with specialists from 10 regional hospitals, were collected. The AETc were led by Asthma Expertise Center of Amsterdam UMC. Remission was assessed by evaluating effect parameters after 4-6 months. Results: 1) Biologics were indicated for 155 of 243 (64%) PwSA. There was no indication in 88 PwSA (36%), resulting in an estimated average cost saving of 243k/y and total estimated savings of 3.5M over 5.5y. 2) The biological treatment of 146 PwSA (49% male, 72% adult-onset, 59% non-allergic) consisted of 35% dupilumab, 29% mepolizumab, 15% benralizumab, 11% reslizumab, and 10% omalizumab. Biologics significantly improved clinical parameters compared to baseline by AA, OCSm, FEV1 and ACQ (all p<0.001). Evaluation showed that 93% of PwSA continued treatment and 7% stopped due to lack of effectiveness. Conclusions: Online AETc results in effective and efficient prescription of biologics for PwSA. It enhances the effectiveness of biologics through careful indication, resulting in cost reduction and medication sustainability.

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

Hendrik Suhling,Dirk Skowasch,Karl-Christian Bergmann,Carlo Mümmler,Roland Buhl,Rainer Ehmann,Eckard Hamelmann,Marco Idzko,Margret Jandl,Christian Schulz,Olaf Schmidt,Christian Taube,Stephanie Korn,Katrin Milger,GAN registry group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100844

2023-11-15

Abstract:Background: For therapy of severe asthma 5 monoclonal antibodies have been available in Germany up to November 2022, but no clear rules exist on choice of initial therapy, assessment of response, and switch. Objective: To assess current practice on all aspects of biologic therapy by specialists in Germany. Methods: A questionnaire was created by specialists for severe asthma, which was tested and modified by further experts. We invited 119 pulmonologists of the German Asthma Net (GAN) to complete the survey and used SoSci Survey and SPSS for data collection and analysis. Results: Forty-seven pulmonologists took part in the survey with a median annual number of patients treated with biologics of 35, 55% worked in an outpatient practice, and 40% in a hospital. Exacerbations and oral steroid use were the most important factors for the decision to start a biologic therapy. Accordingly, these parameters were also the most relevant for assessment of response. Most participants considered type-2 inflammation biomarkers and comorbidities (foremost CRSwNP and AD) for choosing initial biologic. Asthma Control Test (ACT) was the most common instrument for assessing status of disease control. There was no consensus on thresholds for response of pulmonary function tests including FEV1, FVC, and RV. Eighty-five percent of participants distinguished between "responders", "partial responders" and "non-responders". Comorbidities played an important role for the decision to switch to another biologic, eg, when initial therapy had insufficient effectiveness on CRSwNP. Conclusion: This study provides a detailed insight into current opinions and practice of biologic use in severe asthma in Germany.
How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit

Amber N Pepper,Nicola A Hanania,Marc Humbert,Thomas B Casale,Amber N. Pepper,Nicola A. Hanania,Thomas B. Casale

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2020.10.048

2021-03-01

Abstract:<p>Five biologic medications are approved in the United States for the treatment of asthma that is not well controlled with other therapies. All target asthma with elevated type 2 inflammatory markers, such as elevated eosinophils, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, or total and specific IgE. Asthma severity, phenotype, age, biomarkers, treatment goals/outcomes, comorbid conditions, safety, and cost should all help guide the initial biologic choice. In addition, a shared decision-making process with the patient is needed to optimize adherence, with special attention to patient preference regarding outcomes, safety concerns, and medication administration options. After a biologic agent is initiated, sufficient time is needed to monitor efficacy and response. For patients who do not respond favorably, patient-, disease-, and medication-related factors should be considered and remedied, if possible. Persistent suboptimal responders necessitate a reexamination of asthma phenotype, biomarkers, and the suspected immune response pathways. For some patients, a change in biologic therapy or other therapeutic options may be warranted. In this review, we examine the clinical approach for choosing an initial biologic for the treatment of asthma, the assessment of response to biologics, and the process of troubleshooting and adjusting biologic treatment for those patients with suboptimal responses.</p>

Effectiveness of biologic switching in a real‐life, Belgian severe asthma cohort

SWITCHING BIOLOGICS FOR ASTHMA

Real-world super-response to biologics in severe asthma: A French monocentric retrospective cohort study

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

Effectiveness and safety of biological therapy in patients with severe asthma in a real clinical practice

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort

Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Response to Biologics for Severe Asthma

Biologics in T2 Severe Asthma: Unveiling Different Effectiveness by Real-World Indirect Comparison

How I do it. Choosing the right biologic for the right patient with severe asthma

Biologics in severe asthma: the role of real-world evidence from registries

Biologics in asthma: difficulties and drawbacks

Stepping down biologics in asthma: is it time to challenge the status quo?

Switching of biological therapy to dupilumab in comorbid patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP

Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study

The Response to Biologics is Better in Patients with Severe Asthma Than in Patients with Asthma–COPD Overlap Syndrome

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

Biologics in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Three-Year Follow-Up in a SANI Single Center

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma

Optimizing severe asthma care by consulting an asthma expertise team for biologics

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

How to Assess Effectiveness of Biologics for Asthma and What Steps to Take When There Is Not Benefit