Impact of patient support programmes among patients with severe asthma treated with biological therapies: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatment of severe asthma requires patient adherence to inhaled and biological medications. Previous work has shown that patient support programmes (PSP) can improve adherence in patients with chronic diseases, but the impact of PSPs in patients with severe asthma treated with biologics has not been thoroughly investigated. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the impact of PSPs on treatment adherence, asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with severe asthma. Embase, MEDLINE and EconLit databases were searched for studies published from 2003 (the year of the first biological approval for severe asthma) to June 2023 that described PSP participation among patients with severe asthma on biological treatment. Direct pooling of outcomes was not possible due to the heterogeneity across studies, so an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed to determine the effect of PSP participation on treatment discontinuation. The ITC used patient-level data from patients treated with benralizumab either enrolled in a PSP (VOICE study, Connect 360 PSP) or not enrolled in a PSP (Benralizumab Patient Access Programme study) in the UK. FINDINGS: 25 records of 21 studies were selected. Six studies investigated the impact of PSPs on treatment adherence, asthma control or HRQoL. All six studies reported positive outcomes for patients enrolled in PSPs; the benefits of each PSP were closely linked to the services provided. The ITC showed that patients in the Connect 360 PSP group were less likely to discontinue treatment compared with the non-PSP group (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PSPs contribute to positive clinical outcomes in patients with severe asthma on biological treatment. Future analyses will benefit from thorough descriptions of PSP services, and study designs that allow direct comparisons of patient outcomes with and without a PSP.

Systemic Biologic Management of Atopic Dermatitis.

Dupilumab and tralokinumab are currently the only FDA-approved biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Tralokinumab is approved for patients greater than 18 years old, and dupilumab is approved for patients as young as 6 months old. Both medications are effective in clinical trials at improving atopic dermatitis. With a good safety profile and low-risk adverse events, dupilumab and tralokinumab are generally excellent treatment options for patients with severe or refractory atopic dermatitis.

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

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 (p<0.05). 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.

[Concept of remission in severe asthma]. / Concept de rémission dans l'asthme sévère.

The use of biotherapies has revolutionized the management of severe asthma. Following a review of asthma pathophysiology, which underpins the development of these new molecules, this article discusses the different types of remission in childhood and adult asthma. The possibilities of achieving remission with each biotherapy and the factors that predict remission will then be developed. Finally, we'll discuss the chances of maintaining good control of the disease after discontinuation of biotherapies, as well as their contribution in terms of systemic and local cortisone sparing.

L'utilisation des biothérapies a révolutionné la prise en charge de l'asthme sévère. Après un rappel de la physiopathologie de l'asthme qui sous-tend le développement de ces nouvelles molécules, cet article aborde les différents types de rémission de l'asthme de l'enfant et de l'adulte. Seront ensuite développés les possibilités avec chaque biothérapie d'obtenir une rémission ainsi que les facteurs prédictifs de cette rémission. Finalement, la discussion portera sur les chances de maintenir un bon contrôle de la maladie après arrêt des biothérapies ainsi que sur leur apport en termes d'épargne cortisonique par voie générale et locale.

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.

Expression of IL-4 in Tumors: A Safety Surrogate to Predict Cancer Survival Associated With Biologic Therapies.

Interleukin (IL)-4-targeted therapies have revolutionized management of inflammatory dermatoses.

Magnetic resonance enterography findings 46 weeks after initiation of biological therapy predict long-term adverse outcomes in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) depicts transmural changes in response to biological treatment for Crohn's disease (CD); however, the long-term prognostic significance of these findings is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to identify findings on MRE 46 weeks after initiating biological treatment that predict adverse long-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients with CD underwent MRE 46 weeks after initiating biological treatment and were prospectively followed for 2 years. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the prognostic value of different radiologic findings for various predefined adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients included, 46 (51.7%) had ≥1 adverse outcome during follow-up: 40 (44.9%) had clinical recurrence; 18 (20.2%) required surgery, 8 (9%) endoscopic balloon dilation, 12 (13.5%) hospitalization and 7 (7.8%) required corticosteroids. In the multivariate analysis, persistence of severe lesions (MaRIA ≥11) in any intestinal segment was associated with an increased risk of surgery [OR 11.6 (1.5-92.4)], of surgery and/or endoscopic balloon dilation [OR 6.3 (1.3-30.2)], and of clinical relapse [OR 4.6 (1.6-13.9)]. Penetrating lesions were associated with surgery [OR 3.4 (1.2-9.9)]. Creeping fat with hospitalization [OR 5.1 (1.1-25.0)] and corticosteroids requirement [OR 16.0 (1.2-210.0)]. The presence of complications (stricturing and/or penetrating lesions) was associated with having ≥1 adverse outcome [OR 3.35 (1.3-8.5)]. CONCLUSION: MRE findings at week-46 after initiating biological therapy can predict long-term adverse outcomes in CD. Therapeutic intervention may be required in patients with persistence of severe inflammatory lesions, CD-associated complications, or creeping fat.

Macrophage-Targeting DNA Nanomaterials: A Future Direction of Biological Therapy.

DNA can be used for precise construction of complex and flexible micro-nanostructures, including DNA origami, frame nucleic acids, and DNA hydrogels. DNA nanomaterials have good biocompatibility and can enter macrophages via scavenger receptor-mediated endocytosis. DNA nanomaterials can be uniquely and flexibly designed to ensure efficient uptake by macrophages, which represents a novel strategy to regulate macrophage function. With the development of nanotechnology, major advances have been made in the design and manufacturing of DNA nanomaterials for clinical therapy. In diseases accompanied by macrophage disturbances including tumor, infectious diseases, arthritis, fibrosis, acute lung injury, and atherosclerosis, DNA nanomaterials received considerable attention as potential treatments. However, we lack sufficient information to guarantee precise targeting of macrophages by DNA nanomaterials, which precludes their therapeutic applications. In this review, we summarize recent studies of macrophage-targeting DNA nanomaterials and discuss the limitations and challenges of this approach with regard to its potential use as a biological therapy.

Impact of the time of initiation and line of biologic therapy on the retention rate of secukinumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA): data from the French multicentre retrospective FORSYA study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 1-year retention rate of secukinumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and its predisposing factors with regard to its time of initiation (eg, right after or remotely from its launch). METHODS: Study design: Retrospective multicentre French study of patients with axSpA. Study periods: Two cohorts were evaluated regarding the time of initiation of secukinumab: cohort 1 (C1)-between 16 August 2016 and 31 August 2018-and cohort 2 (C2)-between 1 September 2018 and 13 November 2020. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The 1-year retention rate of secukinumab was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare the retention curves of the two cohorts. Preselected factors (eg, disease characterristics, line and time of secukinumab initiation) of secukinumab retention at 1 year were analysed by univariate and multivariate Cox model regression. RESULTS: In total, 906 patients in C1 and 758 in C2 from 50 centres were included in the analysis. The 1-year retention rate was better in C2 (64% (61%-68%)) vs C1 (59% (55%-62%)) (HR=1.19 (1.02-1.39); p=0.0297). In the multivariate analysis, the line of biologic therapy was the single predictive factor of the 1-year retention rate of secukinumab picked up in both cohorts, with a better retention rate when prescribed as first-line biologic therapy. CONCLUSION: The better secukinumab retention rate remotely from its launch is explained by its use at an earlier stage of the disease, suggesting a change in the behaviour of prescribing physicians. Our results emphasise the relevance of iterative evaluations of routine care treatments.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with impaired quality of life on biologic therapy benefit from the support of an IBD nurse specialist: Results of a randomised controlled trial in Germany (IBDBIO-ASSIST study).

BACKGROUND: IBDBIO-ASSIST was a randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy of care provided by IBD nurse specialists in Germany in improving health-related quality of life (QoL) in IBD patients on biologic therapy. AIM: To evaluate patient-related outcomes and economic consequences associated with integrating IBD nurses into usual care. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1086 patients with IBD on biologic therapy to a control group (CG) receiving usual care or an intervention group (IG) receiving additional care from an IBD nurse specialist. The primary outcome was disease-specific QoL (sIBDQ) assessed at 6, 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: At baseline, patients in both groups were highly satisfied with their treatment situation and had relatively high sIBDQ values (range: 1-7; CG: 5.12; IG: 4.92). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the overall sample, there was no significant difference in sIBDQ between groups at the assessment time points. However, a per-protocol analysis of patients with impaired QoL at baseline (EQ-VAS < 75 [median]), showed improvement in sIBDQ over 6 months that became significant at month 12 and remained significant through month 18 (baseline: IG 4.24; CG 4.31; 18 months: IG 5.02; CG 4.76; p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: High baseline satisfaction of IBD patients with treatment and the relatively high baseline sIBDQ values may have contributed to the lack of significant difference in sIBDQ scores for the overall sample. However, patients with impaired QoL derived significant benefit from additional care provided by an IBD nurse specialist, leading to meaningful improvements in sIBDQ over the long term.

[Rheumatoid arthritis: remission without biotherapy? The experience of Burkina Faso (West Africa)]. / Polyarthrite rhumatoïde: la rémission sans biothérapie? L'expérience du Burkina Faso (Afrique de l'Ouest).

Introduction: the objective of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic response of patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: descriptive and analytical single-center cross-sectional study conducted in Burkina Faso from January 2019 to December 2021 in patients with RA meeting American Rheumatism Association/European League against rheumatism criteria. Therapeutic response was assessed according to the criteria of the European League Against Rheumatism, the clinical disease activity index and the simplified disease activity Index after at least six months of treatment. Results: one hundred and three patients, including 85 women were included. The average age of the patients was 50.14 years ± 15.04 years. Eighty-seven patients (84.47%) were ACPA positive and 50 patients (48.54%) had radiological damage at inclusion. The mean DAS28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI were 5.17, respectively; 32.16 and 35.48 at inclusion compared to 2.53; 7.83 and 8.76 after at least six months of treatment (p<0.0001). Ninety-six patients (93.20%) were treated with methotrexate. According to the criteria of the European League Against Rheumatism, 89 patients (86.41%) were good responders, 62 patients (60.19%) were in remission. Major improvement was observed in 53 patients (51.46%) as assessed by the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Simplified Disease Activity Index. Conclusion: despite the unavailability of biotherapies in sub-Saharan Africa, remission of RA can be obtained by optimizing treatment with DMARDs and "tight control".

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

BACKGROUND: The management of uncontrolled severe asthma has greatly improved since the advent of novel biologic therapies. Up to August 2022, five biologics have been approved for the type 2 asthma phenotype: anti-IgE (omalizumab), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), and anti-IL4 (dupilumab) monoclonal antibodies. These drugs are usually well tolerated, although long-term safety information is limited, and some adverse events have not yet been fully characterized. Spontaneous reporting systems represent the cornerstone for the detection of potential signals and evaluation of the real-world safety of all marketed drugs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of safety data of biologics for severe asthma using VigiBase, the World Health Organization global pharmacovigilance database. METHODS: We selected all de-duplicated individual case safety reports (ICSRs) attributed to five approved biologics for severe asthma in VigiBase, up to 31st August 2022 (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab). Descriptive frequency analyses of ICSRs were carried out both as a whole class and as individual products. Reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the measure of disproportionality for suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the study drugs compared with either all other suspected drugs (Reference Group 1, RG1) or inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß-agonists (ICSs/LABAs) (Reference Group 2, RG2) or with oral corticosteroids (OCSs) (Reference Group 3, RG3). RESULTS: Overall, 31,724,381 ICSRs were identified in VigiBase and 167,282 (0.5%) were related to study drugs; the remaining reports were considered as RG1. Stratifying all biologic-related ICSRs by therapeutic indication, around 29.4% (n = 48,440) concerned asthma use; omalizumab was mainly indicated as the suspected drug (n = 20,501), followed by dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab. Most asthma ICSRs concerned adults (57%) and women (64.1%). Asthma biologics showed a higher frequency of serious suspected ADR reporting than RG1 (41.3% vs 32.3%). The most reported suspected ADRs included asthma, dyspnea, product use issue, drug ineffective, cough, headache, fatigue and wheezing. Asthma biologics were disproportionally associated with several unknown or less documented adverse events, such as malignancies, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis with omalizumab; alopecia and lichen planus with dupilumab; alopecia and herpes infections with mepolizumab; alopecia, herpes zoster and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis related to benralizumab; and alopecia with reslizumab. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequently reported suspected ADRs of asthma biologics in VigiBase confirmed the presence of well-known adverse effects such as general disorders, injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, headache and hypersensitivity, while some others (e.g. asthma reactivation or therapeutic failure) could be ascribed to the indication of use. Moreover, the analysis of signals of disproportionate reporting suggests the presence of malignancies, effects on the cardiovascular system, alopecia and autoimmune conditions, requiring further assessment and investigation.

Multidisciplinary Decision-Making-ITAlian Consensus After Two Years of Real Practice on the Management of Severe Uncontrolled CRSwNP by Biologics (ITACA Study).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments. RECENT FINDINGS: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data. RESULTS: Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

For people with severe asthma, biologics are a treatment option that can be taken in addition to their regular medication. In this study, we asked 18 Canadians with severe asthma about how having severe asthma affects their lives, their current and previous asthma treatments, and their views on biologics. Ten people in this study were currently taking or had previously taken biologics for severe asthma. We found that biologics can be life changing. Also, people with severe asthma can find it difficult to get on and stay on biologics. They would like financial and educational support when considering biologics and prefer to take biologics at home, if possible. This study helps us understand the priorities and preferences related to biologics of patients with severe asthma.