Efficacy and safety of a proposed omalizumab biosimilar compared to the reference product in the management of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, equivalency clinical trial.

Background and aims: Allergic asthma has a considerable burden on the quality of life. A significant portion of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma patients need omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin-E monoclonal antibody, as an add-on therapy. In this phase III clinical trial P043 (Zerafil®, CinnaGen, Iran) efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were compared with Xolair® (the originator omalizumab). The primary outcome was the rate of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations. Methods: Exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT) results, spirometry measurements, immunogenicity, and safety were evaluated. Each subject received either medication with a dose ranging from 150 to 375 mg based on pre-treatment serum total IgE level (IU/mL) and body weight (kg) every two or four weeks for a duration of 28 weeks. Results: Exacerbation rates were 0.150 (CI: 0.079-0.220) in the P043 group, and 0.190 (CI: 0.110-0.270) in the omalizumab group (per-protocol). The least squares mean differences of predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in the First second (FEV1) were -2.51% (CI: -7.17-2.15, P=0.29) and -3.87% (CI: -8.79-1.04, P=0.12), pre- and post-bronchodilator use. The mean ± SD of ACT scores at the screening and the last visit were 10.62 ± 2.93 and 20.93 ± 4.26 in P043 and 11.09 ± 2.75 and 20.46 ± 5.11 in the omalizumab group. A total of 288 adverse events were reported for the 256 enrolled participants. Among all, "dyspnea" and "headache" were the most reported ones. The overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.62) and serious adverse events (P=0.07) had no significant differences between the two groups. None of the samples were positive for anti-drug antibodies. Conclusion: P043 was equivalent to omalizumab in the management of asthma in reduction of exacerbations. There was no significant difference in other efficacy and safety parameters. Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05813470) and www.IRCT.ir (IRCT20150303021315N20).

Paradoxical development of Kimura's disease in a patient treated with mepolizumab for bronchial asthma.

A male patient in his early 30s was diagnosed with bronchial asthma 3 years previously. He responded well to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Approximately 18 months from the onset, the patient reported worsening symptoms. These symptoms included severe functional limitations, requiring frequent exposure to high-dose prednisolone. Mepolizumab was added to the treatment, leading to optimal control of bronchial asthma. Despite receiving seven doses of mepolizumab at monthly intervals, the patient developed cervical and postauricular lymphadenopathy and subcutaneous swelling of soft tissue. A cervical lymph node biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of Kimura disease. Following treatment with oral glucocorticoids and methotrexate, the patient experienced a complete resolution of symptoms. He has been in remission and off oral prednisolone for the last 13 months. In this case, we highlight the development of Kimura disease in a patient undergoing mepolizumab treatment.

[New manifestation of a type 2-inflammation in the upper respiratory tract with nasal polyposis under treatment with an asthma biologic]. / Neumanifestation einer Typ-2-Inflammation im Bereich der oberen Atemwege mit Polyposis nasi unter einem Asthmabiologikum.

INTRODUCTION: For 7 years we gained experience of how asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis respond to biologics. In contrast, it is much less known, how ASA/NSAID intolerance (Widal's disease) behaves under biologicals. We therefore describe the case of a patient with both clinical conditions who reacted with a severe intolerance reaction under perioperative metamizole administration.

The role of community pharmacists as oral health advisors in the management of oral effects of asthma medications: an exploratory survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate community pharmacists' attitudes, confidence, practice, knowledge, and barriers towards the management of oral side effects of asthma medications. METHODS: A paper-based questionnaire was developed from previous research, trialled, and validated. Convenience sampling through web search was used to identify pharmacy practices across Cairns, Queensland, Australia. Practices were contacted by email and phone before hand-delivering and collecting questionnaires. KEY FINDINGS: Thirty eight community pharmacist responses were descriptively analysed. Community pharmacists surveyed within the Cairns region feel that it is within their role to help manage the side effects of asthma medications. Many feel this is best conveyed during inhaler dispensing and instruction. Current advice is more prompted rather than preventative. Pharmacists routinely advise patients of mouth-rinsing following inhaler use, however the link to preventing side effects is not clearly communicated. Pharmacists are confident in recognizing and managing common side effects such as oral thrush and dry mouth, but fewer are aware of dental decay and gingivitis. Many identify a lack of guidelines as the largest barrier to providing preventive oral health advice. CONCLUSIONS: Cairns community pharmacists already self-perceive their role in the management of oral side effects of asthma medications. Advice given to patients is practical but does not clearly convey the causative associations between asthma medications and their potential oral side effects. Patient education is prompted more by enquiry rather than a preventative approach. The development of standardized practice protocols and integration within undergraduate degrees or continuing education may benefit the community-pharmacist delivered care.

Role of nebulised magnesium sulfate in treating acute asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy of nebulised magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) in acute asthma in children. METHODS: The authors searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published until 15 December 2023. RCTs were included if they compared the efficacy and safety of nebulised MgSO4 as a second-line agent in children presenting with acute asthma exacerbation. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and the Risk of Bias V.2 tool was used to assess the biases among them. RESULTS: 10 RCTs enrolling 2301 children with acute asthma were included. All trials were placebo controlled and administered nebulised MgSO4/placebo and salbutamol (±ipratropium bromide). There was no significant difference in Composite Asthma Severity Score between the two groups (6 RCTs, 1953 participants; standardised mean difference: -0.09; 95% CI: -0.2 to +0.02, I2=21%). Children in the MgSO4 group have significantly better peak expiratory flow rate (% predicted) than the control group (2 RCTs, 145 participants; mean difference: 19.3; 95% CI: 8.9 to 29.8; I2=0%). There was no difference in the need for hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission or duration of hospital stay. Adverse events were minor, infrequent (7.3%) and similar among the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that nebulised MgSO4 as an add-on second-line therapy for acute asthma in children does not reduce asthma severity or a need for hospitalisation. However, it was associated with slightly better lung functions. The current evidence does not support the routine use of nebulised MgSO4 in paediatric acute asthma management. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022373692.

[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.

The effect of telephone and short-message follow-ups on compliance and efficacy in asthmatic children treated with inhaled corticosteroid: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the effect of telephone and short-message follow-ups on compliance and efficacy in asthmatic children treated with inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: A total of 120 children with moderate bronchial asthma who visited the Asthma Outpatient Department of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University were enrolled in the study. They were divided randomly into 3 groups based on the type of follow-up given: a combined telephone and short-message service (Tel + SMS) group, a SMS group, and a control group. After being followed up for 12 weeks, each child's asthma control level was assessed and their lung function was measured. RESULTS: The compliance rates of children in the Tel + SMS group and SMS group were 86.49% and 56.25%, respectively. The total effective rates of these 2 groups (94.59% and 75.0%, respectively) were significantly higher than the rate of the control group (P < .01). The lung function indicators of the children in all 3 groups were better than those before treatment, although only the Tel + SMS group and SMS group improved significantly (P < .05). The lung function indicators of the large and small airways in the Tel + SMS group and the SMS group were also significantly better than those of the control group (P < .01). The results of the study suggest that 1 of the causes of poor compliance in asthmatic children is fear of an adverse reaction to inhaled corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Telephone and short-message follow-ups can increase compliance with inhaled corticosteroid treatment and improve the asthma control levels and lung function of asthmatic children.

Effectiveness and Safety of Nebulized Magnesium as Last Line Treatment in Adults with Acute Asthma Attack: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a disease characterized by chronic airway inflammation, however one-third of asthmatic cases did not respond adequately. Inhaled magnesium has been proposed as a treatment for unresponsive asthma cases. However, its role remains controversial. This review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of nebulized magnesium compared to standard therapy (Beta Agonist, Anticholinergic, Corticosteroid) in adults with acute asthma attacks. METHODS: The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO. A literature search was conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, and using the keywords "inhaled magnesium" and "asthma". Manual searches were carried out through data portals. Journal articles included are randomized controlled trials. The assessment risk of bias was performed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. RESULTS: There are five articles included in this review. There is no significant difference in readmission rate and oxygen saturation in the magnesium group compared to control (RR 1; 95% CI 0.92 to 1,08; p= 0,96 and MD 1,82; 95% CI -0.89 to 4.53; p= 0.19, respectively). There is a significant reduction of respiratory rate and clinical severity in magnesium (MD -1,72; 95% CI -3,1 to 0.35; p= 0.01, RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.69; p <0.001, respectively). There was a higher risk of side effects in the magnesium group (HR 1.56; 95%CI 1.05 to 2.32; p= 0.03). However, the side effects are relatively mild such as hypotension and nausea. CONCLUSION: Inhaled magnesium improves the outcome of asthmatic patients, especially in lung function, clinical severity, and respiratory rate. Moreover, inhaled magnesium is safe to be given.

Oral corticosteroid stewardship: key insights from the Australasian Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: People with severe asthma remain at risk of toxicity from maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and/or frequent OCS burst therapy. Cumulative exposures above 500-1000 mg prednisolone are associated with adverse effects, and recently OCS stewardship principles were promulgated to guide OCS prescription. AIMS: To examine real-world registry data to quantify OCS burden, ascertain trends over time in prescription and assess whether opportunities to implement steroid-sparing strategies were utilised. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in the Australasian Severe Asthma Registry for the period 2013-2021. Assessments were taken at enrolment and then annual follow-up, which included asthma control and OCS use. Descriptive analyses were performed, and subgroups were compared at baseline and over time. RESULTS: Nine hundred and twenty-four participants were evaluated and 215/924 (23%) were taking maintenance OCS at baseline, with 44% and 32% of participants having exposure to ≥500 or 1000 mg of OCS respectively in the prior year. Twelve months later, an additional 10% and 9% of participants reached cumulative doses of 500 or 1000 mg. People exceeding thresholds had ongoing poor asthma control. At baseline, 240/924 (26%) people were treated with asthma biological therapy. An additional 83 (12%) participants were identified as potentially benefiting from this steroid-sparing medication. Of these patients, only 23% commenced a biologic agent in the next 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: A large national asthma registry identifies exposure to toxic cumulative doses of OCS in more than a third of participants, with further subsequent cumulative dose escalation over 2 years. Steroid-sparing strategies were often not employed, highlighting the need for implementation of OCS stewardship initiatives.

MELTEMI and COLUMBA: 5-Year Comparative Safety Analysis of Benralizumab and Mepolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab and mepolizumab are interleukin (IL)-5Rα/interleukin-5-targeted monoclonal antibodies indicated as add-on treatments for patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the safety of benralizumab and mepolizumab among patients with SEA treated in MELTEMI and COLUMBA open-label, long-term extension studies, respectively. METHODS: MELTEMI was an extension study of benralizumab every 4 weeks (q4w) or every 8 weeks (q8w) for adults (aged 18-75 y) with SEA. MELTEMI participants transitioned from the BORA extension, preceded by participation in 1 of 3 placebo-controlled studies (SIROCCO, CALIMA, or ZONDA). COLUMBA was an extension study of mepolizumab for patients (aged ≥ 12 y) with SEA who transitioned from the dose-ranging DREAM study. Safety endpoints were presented as drug exposure patient-years (MELTEMI, q4w 784.28, q8w 797.03; COLUMBA 1,201) for nonserious adverse events, serious adverse events, and infections; malignancies were counted numerically. RESULTS: This analysis included 446 MELTEMI patients (benralizumab q4w 220; benralizumab q8w 226) and 347 COLUMBA patients (mepolizumab q4w). Viral upper respiratory tract infection was the most common nonserious adverse event in both studies (MELTEMI q8w 46.5%; q4w 47.3%; COLUMBA, 48.7%). Asthma-related events were the most common serious adverse events in both studies: MELTEMI 8.0% (q8w) and 8.6% (q4w) and COLUMBA 9.5%. Serious infections included pneumonia (MELTEMI q8w, 2 [0.9%]; COLUMBA, 6 [1.7%]); cellulitis (MELTEMI q8w, 1 [0.4%]; COLUMBA, 2 [0.6%]); and respiratory tract infections (COLUMBA, 2 [0.6%]). COLUMBA reported 6 malignancies and MELTEMI reported 4 malignancies in each group. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated generally similar safety events between mepolizumab and benralizumab in patients with SEA.

Biologic agents licensed for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Six biologic agents are now approved for patients with severe asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of licensed biologic agents in patients with severe asthma, including the recently approved tezepelumab. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify randomised controlled trials involving licensed biologics until 31 January 2023. We used random-effects meta-analysis models for efficacy, including subgroup analyses by individual agents and markers of T2-high inflammation (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide), and assessed safety. RESULTS: 48 studies with 16 350 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Biologics were associated with a 44% reduction in the annualised rate of asthma exacerbations (rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.62) and 60% reduction of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60), a mean increase in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 0.11 L (95% CI 0.09-0.14), a reduction in asthma control questionnaire by 0.34 points (95% CI -0.46--0.23) and an increase in asthma quality of life questionnaire by 0.38 points (95% CI 0.26-0.49). There was heterogeneity between different classes of biologics in certain outcomes, with overall greater efficacy in patients with T2 inflammation. Overall, biologics exhibited a favourable safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that licensed asthma biologics reduce exacerbations and hospitalisations, improve lung function, asthma control and quality of life, and limit the use of systemic corticosteroids, with a favourable safety profile. These effects are more prominent in patients with evidence of T2 inflammation.

[Adverse events in biologics for severe asthma]. / Effets indésirables des biothérapies de l'asthme sévère.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is a pathology that remains severe and is inadequately controlled in 4% of patients. Identification of multiple pathophysiological mechanisms has led to the development of biomedicines, of which there are currently five available in France, with a safety profile that appears favorable but remains uncertain due to a lack of real-life experience with these new molecules. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Although relatively benign, the adverse effects of biologics are diverse. Headache, joint pain, skin reactions at the injection site, fever and asthenia are commonly observed during the different treatments. Ophthalmological complications seem restricted to dupilumab, with numerous cases of keratitis and conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Several respiratory complications have also been observed, essentially consisting in pharyngitis and other upper respiratory infections. Hypereosinophilia may occur, mainly with dupilumab, requiring investigation of systemic repercussions or vasculitis. Allergic reactions are uncommon but require careful monitoring during initial injections. CONCLUSION: Biologics for severe asthma are recent drugs with a favorable safety profile, but with little real-life experience, justifying increased vigilance by prescribing physicians.

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

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.

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.

Benralizumab in children with severe eosinophilic asthma: Pharmacokinetics and long-term safety (TATE study).

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody approved as an add-on maintenance treatment for patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. Prior Phase 3 studies have evaluated benralizumab in patients aged ≥12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. The TATE study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of benralizumab treatment in children. METHODS: TATE was an open-label, Phase 3 study of benralizumab in children aged 6-11 years from the United States and Japan (plus participants aged 12-14 years from Japan) with severe eosinophilic asthma. Participants received benralizumab 10/30 mg according to weight (<35/≥35 kg). Primary endpoints included maximum serum concentration (Cmax ), clearance, half-life (t1/2 ), and blood eosinophil count. Clearance and t1/2 were derived from a population PK (popPK) analysis. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight children aged 6-11 years were included, with an additional two participants from Japan aged 12-14 years also included in the popPK analysis. Mean Cmax was 1901.2 and 3118.7 ng/mL in the 10 mg/<35 kg and 30 mg/≥35 kg groups, respectively. Clearance was 0.257, and mean t1/2 was 14.5 days. Near-complete depletion of blood eosinophils was shown across dose/weight groups. Exploratory efficacy analyses found numerical improvements in mean FEV1 , mean ACQ-IA, patient/clinician global impression of change, and exacerbation rates. Adverse events occurred in 22/28 (78.6%) of participants; none led to discontinuation/death. CONCLUSION: PK, PD, and safety data support long-term benralizumab in children with severe eosinophilic asthma, and were similar to findings in adolescents and adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-ID: NCT04305405.

Adverse events of anti-IL-5 drugs in patients with eosinophilic asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence-based assessments.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to clarify comprehensively the safety profiles of anti-IL-5 drugs and pinpoint potential safety concerns that may arise in their post-marketing phase. METHODS: Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022. Additionally, we investigated the FDA AE Reporting System for post-marketing adverse event (AE) reports related to anti-IL-5 drugs. The outcomes fulfilled the proportional reporting rate criteria and the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network. RESULTS: We included 24 published studies in our analysis. The anti-IL-5 treatment group showed an incidence of AEs comparable to the placebo group, and it exhibited a significantly lower frequency of serious AEs. Common AEs were asthma, nasopharyngitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and bronchitis. The post-marketing data included 28,478 case reports associated with the suspect drugs and 75 suspect safety observations affecting 16 system organ classes. New suspect observations included incomplete therapeutic product effect, URTIs, and pulmonary mass in reports related to mepolizumab. Reports associated with mepolizumab and benralizumab also indicated issues with incorrect technique in device usage and product issues. CONCLUSIONS: Individual anti-IL-5 drugs' safety profiles largely matched their product inserts. We identified issues like improper device usage, product issue, and URTIs as potential concerns for mepolizumab and benralizumab. Additionally, all anti-IL-5 drugs showed signs of incomplete therapeutic effects.

Clinical characteristics of complete responders versus non-complete responders to omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma: a long-term retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with severe asthma may benefit from treatment with biologics, but evidence has been mostly collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients' characteristics are different from those encountered in asthma patients in the real-world setting. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of complete responders versus non-complete responders to long-term treatment with biologics in patients with severe asthma attended in routine daily practice. METHODS: Data of a cohort of 90 patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for at least 12 months and were followed up to March 2022. Data recorded included clinical characteristics and effectiveness of treatment (exacerbation, Asthma Control Test [ACT] score, lung function, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]), FeNO, and blood eosinophils at baseline, at 12 months, and at the end of follow-up. Complete response is considered if, in addition to not presenting exacerbations or the use of mOCS, the ACT score was >20 and, the FEV1 >80% predicted. RESULTS: An improvement in all asthma control parameters was observed after 12 months of treatment and a mean follow-up of 55 months. After 12 months of treatment 27.2% of patients met the criteria of complete response and this percentage even increased to 35.3% at the end of follow-up. Long-term complete response was associated to better lung function with mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment and to less previous exacerbations in the benralizumab group. The main cause of not achieving a complete response was the persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab improved the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs in the long term follow-up. Airflow obstruction, however, was a predictor of a non-complete response to biologics.

Treatment with anti-IgE and anti-IL-5 biologics significantly improved clinical outcomes in severe asthma patients.The rate of complete responders of 27.2% at 12 months even increased to 35.3% at the end of a mean follow-up of 55 months.The persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern was the main cause of the failure to achieve complete response.