Study protocol: the biologics in severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps survey.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a frequent condition affecting approximately 2% of the population. Medical treatment consists long-term use of intranasal corticosteroids and short-term use of oral corticosteroids, in adjunct with saline solution rinses. Surgical management is proposed in patients who failed after medical treatment. In France, two biologics are reimbursed in case of severe uncontrolled CRSwNP despite medical treatment and endoscopic sinus surgery. Waiting for head-to-head biologics comparison, studies should report the efficacy and safety of biologics in large real-life cohorts. This study protocol describes the aims and methods of a prospective, observational, national, multicentric cohort of patients with CRSwNP treated with biologics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BIOlogics in severe nasal POlyposis SurvEy is a French multicentre prospective observational cohort study. The main aim is to assess the efficacy and tolerance of biologics in patients with CRSwNP, with or without association with other type 2 diseases, and to determine the strategies in case of uncontrolled disease under biologics. Patients over 18 years old requiring biologics for CRSwNP in accordance with its marketing approval in France (ie, severe nasal polyposis, with lack of control under nasal corticosteroid, systemic corticosteroids and surgery) are invited to participate. Collected data include topical history of surgical procedures and biologics, medication and use of systemic corticosteroids, visual analogical scales for specific symptoms, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 questionnaire, nasal polyp score, asthma control test, Lund-Mackay score on CT scan and IgE concentration and eosinophilic count on blood sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05228041/DRI_2021/0030.

Ratio of plasma IL-13/TNF- ∝ and CXCL10/CCL17 predicts mepolizumab and omalizumab response in asthma better than eosinophil count or immunoglobulin E level.

To date, most studies to identify biomarkers associated with response to the anti-interleukin 5 agent, mepolizumab, and to the anti-immunoglobulin E agent, omalizumab have focused on clinically available biomarkers, such as the peripheral blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and total immunoglobulin E (IgE). However, these biomarkers often have low predictive accuracy, with many patients with eosinophilic or allergic asthma failing to demonstrate clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab respectively. In this study, we evaluated the association of baseline pre-biologic plasma levels of 26 cytokines and chemokines, including T-helper 1 (Th1)-, Th2-, Th17-related cytokines, and their ratios with subsequent clinical response to mepolizumab or omalizumab. We defined clinical response as a reduction in the baseline annual exacerbation rate by half or more over the one-year period following initiation of the biologic. Baseline levels of plasma IL-13 were differentially elevated in responders versus non-responders to mepolizumab and plasma CXCL10 levels were differentially elevated in responders to omalizumab. The ratio of IL-13/TNF-α had the best sensitivity and specificity in predicting response to mepolizumab and CXCL10/CCL17 to omalizumab, and these performed better as predictive biomarkers of response than BEC and IgE. Cytokines and chemokines associated with airway eosinophilia, allergic inflammation, or Th2 inflammation, such as IL-13 and CXCL10, may be better predictors of clinical response to mepolizumab and omalizumab, than IL-5 or IgE, the targets of mepolizumab and omalizumab.

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.

UCOMB-real life data: treatment strategies for chronic urticaria patients with comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of real-life safety data on treatment options for chronic urticaria in the presence of comedication and comorbidities. METHODS: We present a single-center UCARE pilot study of 212 outpatients with chronic urticaria. Patients were divided into three groups according to different CU therapies according to international guidelines. RESULTS: Of 212 patients, 108 (mean age 48.9 years, 71.3% female) had 59 comorbidities, including cardiovascular, autoimmune and malignant diseases. Patients were followed for a mean of 24.6 months (SD ± 21.3). Urticaria therapies were divided into three groups: A: 105 (97.2%) with omalizumab and 2nd generation antihistamines), B: 16 patients (14.8%): dual therapy with antihistamines and cyclosporine in 10 (9.3%), montelukast in five (4. 6%), dapsone in four (3.7%), hydroxychloroquine in one patient (0.9%), C: 12 (11.1%) patients received a third drug for 4.9 months (SD ± 3.2) and one quadruple therapy (2.1 months). 10 out of 12 (83.3%) patients received montelukast, two (16.7%) cyclosporine, two (16.7%) dapsone and one (8.3%) hydroxychloroquine as a third drug for chronic urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: Combining treatment modalities for chronic urticaria and comorbidities are available and feasible with a good safety profile.

The Effectiveness of Biological Agents on Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis in Patients with Comorbid Asthma: A Multicenter Real-Life Study from Türkiye.

Background and Objectives: Real-life data on the efficacy of biologic agents (BAs) on asthma-comorbid CRSwNP are needed. Our primary goal is to investigate the effects of BAs on CRSwNP symptoms, as well as endoscopic and tomography scores. Our secondary goal is to show a reduction in the frequency of acute sinusitis exacerbations and the need for surgery. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, real-life study. We screened the patients with asthma-comorbid CRSwNP treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. A total of 69 patients (40 F/29 M; omalizumab n = 55, mepolizumab n = 14) were enrolled. We compared the visual analog scale (VAS), sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22), nasal congestion score (NCS), Lund-Mackay computed tomography score (LMS), and total endoscopic polyp scores (TPS) before and after BAs. We evaluated the endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) frequencies separately, according to the BAs. Results: The overall median (min-max) age was 43 (21-69) years. The median (min-max) of biologic therapy duration was 35 (4-113) months for omalizumab and 13.5 (6-32) for mepolizumab. Significant improvements were seen in VAS, SNOT-22, and NCS with omalizumab and mepolizumab. A significant decrease was observed in TPS with omalizumab [95% CI: 0-4] (p < 0.001), but not with mepolizumab [95% CI: -0.5-2] (p = 0.335). The frequency of ESS and AECRS were significantly reduced with omalizumab [95% CI: 2-3] (p < 0.001) and [95% CI: 2-5] (p < 0.001); and mepolizumab [95% CI: 0-2] (p = 0.002) and [95% CI: 2-8.5] (p < 0.001), respectively. There was no significant difference in LMS with either of the BAs. Conclusions: Omalizumab and mepolizumab can provide a significant improvement in the sinonasal symptom scores. BAs are promising agents for CRSwNP patients with frequent exacerbations and multiple surgeries.

Omalizumab in the treatment of Morbihan syndrome in an adolescent girl - case report and literature review.

Morbihan syndrome (MS) is characterized by solid facial edema, usually related to rosacea or acne vulgaris. The facial edema deforms the patient's features, can impair peripheral vision, and affects quality of life. Its pathophysiology remains unclear. The disease usually has a slow and chronic course. MS most commonly affects middle-aged Caucasian men with rosacea and is rare in people below 20 years of age. MS is a diagnosis of exclusion. There is no standard treatment for MS, though systemic isotretinoin and antihistamines are mainly used. We present the case of an adolescent girl with MS nonresponding to 19 months of isotretinoin treatment with add-on antihistamines. Therapy with monthly administration of omalizumab (anti-IgE) for 6 months was an effective therapeutic option, improving the quality of life. Our case is the second description of omalizumab use in Morbihan syndrome, the first in an adolescent.

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

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

Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of YH35324, a novel Long-Acting High-Affinity IgETrap-Fc protein in subjects with Atopy: Results from the First-in-Human study.

BACKGROUND: YH35324, a long-acting IgETrap-Fc fusion protein, is a novel therapeutic agent for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic diseases. This randomized, double-blind, placebo/active-controlled, single ascending dose Phase 1 study assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of YH35324 in subjects with atopy. METHODS: Eligible subjects were healthy subjects or atopic adults with mild allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, or urticaria, and a serum total IgE level of 30-700 IU/mL (Part A) or > 700 IU/mL (Part B). In Part A, 35 subjects in 5 cohorts received YH35324 (0.3, 1, 3, 6, and 9 mg/kg), 8 received omalizumab (300 mg), and 9 received placebo. In Part B, 8 subjects received YH35324 and 8 received omalizumab. RESULTS: Twenty subjects (38.5 %) in Part A (YH35324: 37.1 %, omalizumab: 50.0 %, placebo: 33.3 %) and 10 subjects (62.5 %) in Part B (YH35324: 100 %; omalizumab: 25.0 %) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). TEAEs were mostly grade 1/2; no serious AEs, AE-related treatment discontinuation, or anaphylaxis were reported. YH35324 exhibited dose-proportional increase in Cmax and AUClast over the dose range of 0.3-9 mg/kg. YH35324 rapidly suppressed serum-free IgE levels to a significant extent (< 25 and < 82.8 ng/mL, both P < 0.05) and with longer duration than omalizumab. CONCLUSION: This study showed that YH35324 has a favorable safety profile and is effective in reducing serum-free IgE levels in subjects with atopic conditions.

Lung function trajectories in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma on mepolizumab, omalizumab, or dupilumab.

BACKGROUND: Lung function is an independent predictor of mortality. We evaluated the lung function trajectories of a cohort of patients with asthma receiving biologic therapy. METHODS: We identified 229 monoclonal antibody-naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who initiated omalizumab, mepolizumab, or dupilumab between 2010 and 2022 in a large healthcare system in Boston, MA. Generalized additive mixed models were used to estimate the lung function trajectories during the 156 weeks following biologic initiation. Response was defined as an improvement in FEV1 or a decrease of ≤0.5% per year. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to assess time to no additional improvement in FEV1 in responders. All models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, baseline exacerbation rate, and baseline blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients initiated mepolizumab, 76 omalizumab, and 65 dupilumab. Baseline eosinophil count was highest in the mepolizumab group (405 cells/mcL) and lowest for omalizumab (250 cells/mcL). Both FEV1 and FVC improved in the mepolizumab group (FEV1 + 20 mL/year; FVC +43 mL/year). For omalizumab, there was an initial improvement in the first year followed by decline with an overall FEV1 loss of -44 mL/year and FVC -32 mL/year. For dupilumab, both FEV1 (+61 mL/year) and FVC (+74 mL/year) improved over time. Fifty percent of the mepolizumab group, 58% omalizumab, and 72% of dupilumab were responders. The median time to no additional FEV1 improvement in responders was 24 weeks for omalizumab, 48 weeks for mepolizumab, and 57 weeks for dupilumab. CONCLUSION: In this clinical cohort, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and dupilumab had beneficial effects on FEV1 and FVC with distinct post-initiation trajectories.

Anti-immunoglobulin E provides an additional therapy to conventional steroids for Kimura's disease.

Kimura's disease (KD) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by painless subcutaneous head and neck swelling, eosinophilia, and elevated serum immunoglobulin (Ig) E levels. There are various therapies, including surgery, radiation, systemic steroids, and immune suppressants, but their efficacy remains moderate due to the high recurrence rate. Biologics, like monoclonal antibodies, have shown tremendous effectiveness for chronic inflammatory diseases. Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody against IgE and has not been approved for KD so far. We describe two refractory KD cases that responded to a small dose of steroids plus omalizumab. Additionally, we reviewed another 13 KD cases that were treated with biologics, including omalizumab, rituximab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab. The results indicate that biologics provide an alternative treatment strategy for KD.

Omalizumab improves sinonasal outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps regardless of allergic status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often have atopic comorbidities, including elevated IgE levels and comorbid asthma. Omalizumab, an IgE monoclonal antibody, is an effective treatment for CRSwNP, but the impact of allergy or asthma status on response to omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of allergy and asthma status on omalizumab treatment in patients with CRSwNP, this posthoc exploratory analysis assessed sinonasal outcomes from subgroups of patients included in POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the open-label extension (OLE) trials. METHODS: Patients (N = 249) were grouped by the presence/absence of comorbid allergy (≥ 1 physician-reported allergic rhinitis, allergic sinusitis, food allergy, or atopic dermatitis), presence/absence of comorbid asthma, baseline serum total IgE (≥ 150 or <150 IU/mL), and baseline blood eosinophil levels (>300 or ≤ 300 cells/µL). Sinonasal outcomes were the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22. RESULTS: During POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the OLE, omalizumab treatment improved the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22 score in patients with/without physician-reported allergic comorbidities, with/without asthma, with higher/lower total IgE levels, and with higher/lower blood eosinophil counts. In the OLE, the pattern of improvement was similar in patients who continued or switched to omalizumab. CONCLUSION: In patients with CRSwNP, omalizumab improved sinonasal outcomes independent of allergic status, which suggests that a wide range of patients with different endotypes and phenotypes of CRSwNP may benefit from omalizumab treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03280550, NCT03280537, NCT03478930.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) treated with omalizumab, dupilumab, or mepolizumab: A systematic review of the current knowledge towards an attempt to compare agents' efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity of existing studies, along with the fact that there are no published head-to-head trials, are the main reasons for the lack of guidelines regarding the selection of the proper biologic in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps. The aim of this study is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the efficacy of omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab in CRS treatment. We also attempt to proceed to an indirect comparison of the agents and try to answer the tricky question: which agent to select and why? METHODS: An extensive search in English literature was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database/Library. Eligibility criteria included papers with full text published in English, adult population studies, clearly described intervention protocol, and documented primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The studies included numbered 37. All agents provided significant improvement in polyp size, sinuses opacification, severity of symptoms, need for surgery and systemic corticosteroids use. Analysis of available systematic reviews, meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison studies showed that dupilumab appeared to be the most beneficial agent, in terms of primary and secondary outcomes. However, these results are of relatively low level of evidence due to several methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Although the present analysis showed a moderate supremacy of dupilumab, there is still no evidence-based answer to the question "which biologic agent is the most effective in CRS treatment?" Improved statistical methodology, head-to-head trials, and real-life studies could lead to more robust conclusions, establishing the real role of the specific biologic agents.

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps.

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

IgE directly affects eosinophil migration in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps through CCR3 and predicts the efficacy of omalizumab.

BACKGROUND: Whether IgE affects eosinophil migration in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) remains largely unclear. Moreover, our understanding of local IgE, eosinophils, and omalizumab efficacy in CRSwNP remains limited. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether IgE acts directly on eosinophils and determined its role in omalizumab therapy. METHODS: Eosinophils and their surface receptors were detected by hematoxylin and eosin staining and flow cytometry. IgE and its receptors, eosinophil peroxidase (EPX), eosinophilic cationic protein, and CCR3 were detected by immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence. Functional analyses were performed on blood eosinophils and polyp tissues. Logistic regression was performed to screen for risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic curve was generated to evaluate the accuracy. RESULTS: Both FcεRI and CD23 were expressed on eosinophils. The expression of FcεRI and CD23 on eosinophil in nasal polyp tissue was higher than in peripheral blood (both P < .001). IgE and EPX colocalized in CRSwNP. IgE directly promoted eosinophil migration by upregulating CCR3 in CRSwNP but not in healthy controls. Omalizumab and lumiliximab were found to be effective in restraining this migration, indicating CD23 was involved in IgE-induced eosinophil migration. Both IgE+ and EPX+ cells were significantly reduced after omalizumab treatment in those who experienced response (IgE+ cells, P = .001; EPX+ cells, P = .016) but not in those with no response (IgE+ cells, P = .060; EPX+ cells, P = .151). Baseline IgE+ cell levels were higher in those with response compared to those without response (P = .024). The baseline local IgE+ cell count predicted omalizumab efficacy with an accuracy of 0.811. CONCLUSIONS: IgE directly promotes eosinophil migration, and baseline local IgE+ cell counts are predictive of omalizumab efficacy in CRSwNP.

Comparison of the General Characteristics of Patients with Severe Asthma Who Switched from Omalizumab to Mepolizumab versus Patients Who Responded to Omalizumab Treatment: A Real-Life Study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe asthma is characterized by frequent recurrent airway symptoms and exacerbations, and these affect the quality of life. Biological agents can be used in the treatment of patients with severe asthma if the disease cannot be controlled with standard controller treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and laboratory data of patients with severe asthma who were switched from omalizumab to mepolizumab and patients with severe asthma who responded to omalizumab. METHODS: The clinical characteristics and laboratory data of patients with severe asthma who responded to omalizumab and switched from omalizumab to mepolizumab were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: Evaluation was made of a total of 79 patients, including 64 omalizumab responders and 15 who switched to mepolizumab from omalizumab. After omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment, the annual number of asthma attacks, the use of oral corticosteroid (OCS), the annual number of hospitalizations, and the eosinophil count significantly decreased (omalizumab: p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively; mepolizumab: p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.001, respectively). After omalizumab treatment, the increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (%) and asthma control test (ACT) score were determined to be statistically significant (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). After mepolizumab treatment, the increase in ACT score was significant (p = 0.003). Drug allergy, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), regular use of OCS, and high baseline eosinophil count (cells/µL) were associated with poor response to omalizumab treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 7.86, p = 0.003; OR = 52.92, p < 0.001; OR = 10.16, p = 0.004; OR = 0.99, p = 0.004, respectively). House dust mite sensitivity and high baseline FEV1 (%) were associated with good response to omalizumab treatment (OR = 0.29, p = 0.041; OR = 1.06, p = 0.03, respectively). The blood eosinophil count had diagnostic value in predicting the nonresponsiveness to omalizumab treatment (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.967, p < 0.001, cut-off: 510). CONCLUSION: A high pretreatment eosinophil count, concomitant CRSwNP, a history of drug allergy, and regular OCS use may be associated with poor response to omalizumab treatment in patients with severe asthma. Depending on the treatment response, treatment switching can be applied between biological agents. The results of the current study should be supported by multicenter studies.

Factors influencing poor response to type 2 targeted therapies in severe asthma: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A significant breakthrough has been made in treating severe asthma, with the recognition of various asthma phenotypes and an updated management guideline. Type 2 targeted therapies, such as benralizumab and omalizumab; have been identified as an effective treatment for severe asthma, improving patient response, lung function tests and asthma symptom control. This study aimed to evaluate factors contributing to poor response to therapy. METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort study of 162 patients with severe asthma who started biologic therapy; their data were retrieved from medical records for further analysis. Poor responders were patients remained clinically and functionally uncontrolled despite even after augmenting all treatment options. RESULTS: Childhood-onset asthma, bronchiectasis, poor symptom control (ACT below 19), severe airway obstruction (< 60% predicted), and maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use were significantly associated with poor response to omalizumab and benralizumab; p = 0.0.4 and 0.01; 0.003 and 0.01; 0.01 and 0.001, 0.05 and 0.04; 0.006 and 0.02, respectively. However, chronic rhinosinusitis and IgE < 220kIU/L were associated with higher poor response rates to omalizumab (p = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). At the same time, female patients and those with blood eosinophils level < 500 cells/mm3 had a higher poor response rate to benralizumab (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). Ischemic heart disease (IHD), bronchiectasis, and continued use of OCS increased the likelihood of poor response to omalizumab by 21, 7, and 24 times (p = 0.004, 0.008, and 0.004, respectively). In contrast, the female gender, childhood-onset asthma and higher BMI increased the likelihood of poor response to benralizumab by 7, 7 and 2 times more, p = 0.03, 0.02 and 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSION: Poor response to omalizumab treatment was independently associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD), bronchiectasis, and a history of maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use. Conversely, poor response to benralizumab therapy was independently linked to female gender, childhood-onset asthma and higher body mass index (BMI).

The phenotypic heterogeneity of obese and nonobese patients with severe asthma and comparison of omalizumab-mepolizumab treatment efficiency in these patients.

In obese severe asthmatics, the degree of type 2 inflammation may vary according to their atopic status and past smoking history. In this study, we aimed to analyze the clinical and physiopathological features of obese and nonobese severe asthmatics treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab treatment. In addition we aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric outcomes and total peripheral eosinophilic count (TEC) changes after treatment with these 2 biologic agents in obese and nonobese groups. In this retrospective, cross sectional study, 121 severe asthmatic treated with biologic agents (omalizumab = 88 or mepolizumab = 33) for at least 16 weeks were included. Obese (n: 44) and nonobese severe asthmatics (n: 77) were analyzed according to whether they provided a ≥ 10 pack/years (p/y) or <10 p/y smoking history and were found to be atopic. Obese and nonobese groups were compared in terms of the change in the asthma control test, asthma attacks, TEC, and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) after treatment. In patients with ≥10 p/y smoking history, nonobese group had a significantly higher TEC compared to obese group [median (min-max) 660 cells/µL (200-1500) vs 300 cells/µL (110-770); p: 0.013]. Within the nonobese group, nonatopic patients had a significantly higher TEC compared to atopic patients [median (min-max) 1200 cells/µL (100-2100) vs 310 cells/µL (0-2730); p: 0.021]. Both biologic agents had similar effects on improving asthma control test and in reducing asthma attacks; however, mepolizumab was more effective in suppressing TEC. The improvement in FEV1 in obese group following biologic 2 agents was very similar but in nonobese group, mepolizumab was found to be superior (510 mL vs. 295 mL; p: 0.034). In our real-life study, nonobese severe asthmatics with ≥10 p/y smoking history and those that were nonatopic had higher TEC. Compared to omalizumab, mepolizumab was superior at reducing TEC in all asthmatics and in improving FEV1 in nonobese group.

Omalizumab Transitions in Severe Asthma: Factors Influencing Switching Decisions and Timing for Optimal Response.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of switching from omalizumab to another biologic therapy for patients with severe asthma and evaluate factors that influenced the decision to switch and determined the optimal time for a good biologic response. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of severe asthma patients was conducted at Al-Rashed Allergy Center, a tertiary center in Kuwait. After meeting the eligibility criteria, patients were divided into two comparative groups: those continuing with omalizumab and those who started with omalizumab but switched to another biologic. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients with severe asthma were recruited, and only 33 had access to multiple biological treatments. Approximately 22.4% switched from omalizumab. Male patients with a history of ischemic heart disease, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyps were more likely to switch if they had higher levels of eosinophils in the sputum. This study showed that every 1% increase in sputum eosinophils doubled the likelihood of a switch. Patients with access to alternative biological options had a much shorter mean duration of omalizumab therapy before switching compared to those with only affordable omalizumab: 4.9 ± 1.5 years versus 8.9 ± 1.3 years (p < 0.001). The optimal time to predict the likelihood of a good response was less than 5.5 years, with an area under the curve of 0.91 and p = 0.003. This cutoff point provided a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 89% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: An early transition from omalizumab, specifically within the first 5 years of treatment, in patients with severe asthma and higher sputum eosinophils may enhance the likelihood of a good response if other biological therapies were available.

Improvement in Smell Using Monoclonal Antibodies Among Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Impairment of smell is more commonly related to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) than without, especially when asthma and/or NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease and type 2 inflammation are also present. Therapeutic options include intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, surgery, and, more recently, biological therapy. We summarize current knowledge on the effect of biologics on olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 2001 to June 2022. The inclusion criteria were as follows: adult patients with CRS treated with dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab; and studies published in English reporting outcomes for sense of smell based on psychophysical and/or subjective tools. We excluded reports that did not assess CRSwNP, loss of smell evaluated with a method other than those accepted in the inclusion criteria, review articles, and expert opinions. No funding was received. RESULTS: Dupilumab has demonstrated rapid and sustained long-term improvement in smell in clinical trials and in real life. Omalizumab improves smell at 24 weeks. This improvement is maintained in the long-term, although it is not clinically relevant. Mepolizumab and benralizumab improved smell in the long term based on a subjective scale. No studies examining the improvement in smell in patients with CRSwNP treated with reslizumab were found. Indirect comparisons by meta-analysis consistently conclude that dupilumab is the most effective biologic for improving impaired sense of smell. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab seems to be more efficacious for improving the sense of smell than omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab.