Biological treatments in childhood asthma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim is to update the information currently available for the use of biologics in severe asthma in children, in order to facilitate their prescription as far as possible. RECENT FINDINGS: The appearance of biologics for the treatment of severe asthma has meant a revolutionary change in the therapeutic approach to this disease. Currently, five biologics have been approved for severe asthma in children and/or adolescents by the regulatory agencies: omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and tezepelumab. But despite their positive results in terms of efficacy, there are still relevant points of debate that should induce caution when selecting the most appropriate biologic in a child with severe asthma. Indeed, safety is essential and, for several of the existing treatments, the availability of medium-term to long-term data in this regard is scarce. SUMMARY: The use of biologics can facilitate the therapeutic paradigm shift from pleiotropic treatments to personalized medicine. However, the choice of the most appropriate biologics remains a pending issue. On the other hand, to the extent that several of the biologics have been available for a relatively short time, the most robust evidence in terms of efficacy and safety in children is that of omalizumab.

Biomarkers to predict therapeutic response in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a review.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a relatively common dermatological disorder characterized by sudden and unpredictable onset of pruritic wheals and/or angioedema, for more than six weeks. It is a mast cell-mediated histaminergic disorder, considerably worsening patients' quality of life. Current treatment options include anti-histamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine, in a step-wise algorithmic approach, aimed at complete symptom control. Patients do not respond uniformly to these therapeutic options due to phenotypic and endotypic heterogeneity, and often remain uncontrolled/poorly controlled. Recent research is focused on identifying certain biomarkers to predict therapeutic response and facilitate patient-targeted personalized treatment, for maximum benefit. The current article summarizes various biomarkers explored to date, and also elaborates their role in predicting therapeutic response to anti-histamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine, in CSU patients. High disease activity, elevated CRP/ESR and elevated D-dimer are the most important predictors of non/poor-response to antihistamines. Low and very low baseline IgE, elevated CRP/ESR, ASST+, BAT/BHRA+, basopenia, eosinopenia, and elevated D-dimer are predictors of poor and good response to omalizumab and cyclosporine, respectively. Additionally, normal or slightly elevated baseline IgE and FceR1 overexpression are predictors of a faster response with omalizumab. However, none of these predictors have so far been completely validated and are not yet recommended for routine use. Thus, large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm these predictive biomarkers and identify new ones to achieve the goal of personalized medicine for CSU.

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.

Total IgE as a biomarker of omalizumab response in chronic spontaneous urticaria: A meta-analysis.

Background: Omalizumab is approved for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) that is refractory to antihistamines. Total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels have emerged as a possible biomarker to predict response to omalizumab. However, the existing literature is heterogenous, with conflicting conclusions with regard to the role of total IgE levels. Objective: We sought to clarify the role of evaluating total IgE levels in patients with CSU by performing a meta-analysis on the existing literature to determine if meaningful changes exist between responders and nonresponders to omalizumab. Methods: A total of 68 unique citations were returned and screened by two independent reviewers. Editorials, reviews, and case reports were excluded, and a total of 33 original articles were identified and underwent secondary evaluation. Studies that present mean ± standard deviation total IgE levels and/or 95% confidence intervals (CI) were included, whereas studies with < 25 subjects were excluded. Three studies ultimately met these criteria. Results: We found a mean difference in total IgE levels between those who responded to omalizumab versus those without a response of 49.76 (95% CI, 7.13-92.38; p = 0.02), which demonstrated higher mean IgE values in responders compared with nonresponders. Conclusion: This study presents additional evidence that supports evaluation of total IgE levels as it pertains to response to omalizumab therapy in CSU. When considering the current evidence, it seems reasonable to consider the baseline total IgE level as a biomarker to predict the treatment response to omalizumab. Based on the existing literature, we cannot conclude at what threshold nonresponse is more likely to occur.

The Incredible Adventure of Omalizumab.

The basis of our current understanding of allergies begins with the discovery of IgE in the mid-1960s. The whole theory of the physiology and pathophysiology of allergic diseases, including rhinitis and asthma, dates from that period. Among the key regions of IgE identified were the FAB (fragment antigen binding) portion that has the ability to capture allergens, and the Cε3 domain, through which IgE binds to its membrane receptor. It was then postulated that blocking IgE at the level of the Cε3 domain would prevent it from binding to its receptor and thus set in motion the allergic cascade. This was the beginning of the development of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody with an anti-IgE effect. In this article, we review the pathophysiology of allergic disease and trace the clinical development of omalizumab. We also review the benefits of omalizumab treatment that are apparently unrelated to allergies, such as its effect on immunity and bronchial remodeling.

Role of biologics in severe food allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examine the dynamic landscape of food allergy treatment within the context of emerging biologics. Our purpose is to comprehensively evaluate the potential benefits, challenges, and transformative impact associated with the utilization of biologics in comparison to conventional therapeutic modalities. RECENT FINDINGS: This document synthesizes recent scientific investigations to various biologics, such as omalizumab, ligelizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, providing a nuanced understanding of their roles in oral immunotherapy, rapid desensitization, and overall food allergy management. Recent studies and clinical trials highlight the impact of anti-IgE treatment on food allergies, revealing critical findings such as dose-related efficacy, facilitation of rapid desensitization in peanut allergies, and the sustained positive outcomes observed in individuals with multifood allergies. SUMMARY: The use of biologics presents a groundbreaking approach in the treatment of food allergies. The multifaceted action of these agents, along with their potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional therapies, marks a significant advancement. Despite the persisting challenges of economic constraints and the need for further safety studies, biologics offer a promising avenue for improving the quality of life for individuals with food allergies. Ongoing research and collaborative efforts are imperative to fully realize the transformative potential inherent in these emerging therapeutic frontiers.

Impact of biologics on lung hyperinflation in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: In asthma, inflammation affects both the proximal and distal airways and can cause significant hyperinflation, which is thought to be a major cause of dyspnea. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study evaluating the effect of three months of treatment with different biologic drugs (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) on pulmonary hyperinflation in a cohort of patients with severe asthma already receiving regular triple inhaled therapy. Changes in RV, RV/TLC ratio, FRC and FRC/TLC ratio were the primary efficacy measures. Secondary outcomes included FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC ratio, IC, IC/TLC ratio, asthma control test, the percentage of eosinophils in the blood and fractional FENO. RESULTS: Benralizumab led to significant changes (p < 0.001) in RV, RV/TLC, FRC, and FRC/TLC. Dupilumab demonstrated a notable reduction in RV (p = 0.017) and RV/TLC (p = 0.002), but the decreases in FRC and FRC/TLC were merely numerical and not as pronounced as those induced by benralizumab. Omalizumab's positive impact on RV (p = 0.057) and RV/TLC (p = 0.085), as well as FRC (p = 0.202) and FRC/TLC (p = 0.096), was also predominantly numerical, with a tendency towards efficacy, albeit excluding the effect on FRC. Treatment with biologics resulted in improvements in all other lung function parameters assessed and a decrease in FENO levels. CONCLUSION: This study, although limited by small sample size, lack of a placebo control, and unbalanced group sizes, suggests that biological agents are effective in reducing lung hyperinflation even after a relatively short treatment.

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.

New biologics for food allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explore role of emerging biologics, including ligelizumab, UB-221, dupilumab, and antialarmins, in food allergy management. With a focus on recent developments, we evaluate their promise in mitigating adverse events during oral immunotherapy (OIT), reducing allergic reactions, and addressing the limitations of current therapeutic options. RECENT FINDINGS: Antiimmunoglobulin E mAbs, exemplified by omalizumab, demonstrate efficacy in desensitization and safety improvement during multiallergen OIT. Next-generation antibodies like ligelizumab and UB-221 exhibit enhanced potency and unique mechanisms, holding promise for food allergy treatment. Dupilumab, targeting IL-4 receptor alpha, presents potential benefits in decreasing allergen-specific IgE and modifying the atopic march. Exploration of antialarmins, specifically anti-IL-33 (etokimab) and anti-TSLP (tezepelumab), reveals encouraging results, with etokimab showing early success in peanut allergy trials. SUMMARY: Biologics hold promising potential for food allergy treatment. Tailoring therapeutic approaches based on shared decision-making becomes pivotal. While omalizumab remains a significant option, next-generation anti-IgE antibodies and agents targeting alarmins exhibit unique strengths. Dupilumab, despite limited success as monotherapy, shows promise as an adjunct for OIT. Careful consideration of treatment goals, patient preferences, and the evolving landscape of biologics will shape future clinical practice, offering allergists an expanded toolbox for personalized food allergy management.

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.

[Approved therapies and their effects on the main symptoms of urticaria : When symptom control of itchy wheals is not adequate-does updosing help?] / Zugelassene Therapien und ihre Wirkung auf die Leitsymptome der Urtikaria : Hilfreiche Therapieoptionen, wenn juckende Quaddeln nicht weichen ­ Viel hilft viel?

International guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria support the updosing of second-generation antihistamines to four times of the approved dose when adequate symptom control cannot be achieved with the standard dosage. However, this recommendation is primarily based on expert opinions, and there is a lack of large, well-designed, double-blind clinical trials. Most the existing trials provide insufficient data, and due to the heterogeneity of the conducted trials on antihistamine effects (definition of control, design, quality, lack of an active comparator, no placebo arm, small sample size, outcomes) and their short duration, comparative analysis is challenging. However, it can be concluded that the use of modern second-generation antihistamines is both effective and safe based on the available data and our own long-term experiences in the specialized outpatient clinic of a university dermatology department, even though increased dosages (up to fourfold as per the current international guidelines) may be necessary for symptom control. Another therapeutic option for refractory symptoms in chronic spontaneous urticaria is subcutaneous administration of omalizumab at a dosage of 300 mg at 4­week intervals as a very safe and effective treatment.

Comparison of the therapeutic effects of medication therapy, specific immunotherapy and anti-IgE (Omalizumab) in patients with hay fever.

Background: Hay fever, characterized by seasonal allergic reactions, poses a significant health challenge. Existing therapies encompass standard drug regimens, biological agents, and specific immunotherapy. This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of anti-IgE (omalizumab), medication therapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for hay fever. Methods: Conducted as a retrospective cohort study, this research involved 98 outpatient hay fever patients who underwent routine medication, omalizumab treatment, or SCIT before the onset of the spring pollen season. A follow-up was performed one month after the start of the pollen season. The comprehensive symptoms and drug scores were used to evaluate patients with different intervention methods, facilitating a comparative analysis of therapeutic outcomes. Results: Compared with before treatment, the symptoms of patients treated with the three methods were all significantly relieved, and the medication score were significantly reduced. Patients treated with omalizumab demonstrated higher symptoms and medication scores than SCIT group before treatment, but similar scores after treatment, which were both lower than medicine treatment group. After treatment with omalizumab or SCIT, patients in both groups had significantly lower medication scores than the medication group and were close to no longer using medication for symptom relief. The mountain juniper-sIgE was significantly higher after treatment than before treatment in both medicine treatment group and omalizumab treatment group. Conclusion: Omalizumab and SCIT offer superior effects than medication therapy in hay fever patients.

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of Omalizumab on food allergy threshold in children with severe food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is common in childhood with some children having a low threshold and being difficult to protect from accidental ingestion of the offending food. Therapies for this potentially life-threatening condition are highly needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Omalizumab in food-allergic children. METHODS: This is a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Food allergic children with a cumulative threshold ≤443 mg food protein at DBPCFC were randomized to Omalizumab (asthma dose) or placebo (3:1). After 3 months, a second DBPCFC was performed (steps 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, and 3000 mg food protein), followed by a separate open challenge up to 10,000 and 30,000 mg food protein if negative. Responders were defined as ≥2-step increases in threshold. Non-responders received high-dose Omalizumab. A third DBPCFC was performed after 6 months. Skin testing, blood samples, and the severity of atopic co-morbidity were registered during the study and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: In total, 20 children were evaluated at 3 months (14 Omalizumab, 6 placebo). All treated with Omalizumab increased their threshold at least two steps and with a significant difference between the Omalizumab and the placebo group (p = .003), although the intended number of included children was not reached. The threshold before Omalizumab treatment was 13-443 mg food protein while the threshold after 3 months of treatment increased up to 44,000 mg (1143-44,000). In the placebo group, two children improved threshold during the study. CONCLUSION: An increase in the threshold level during Omalizumab treatment significantly improve patient safety and protected all children against small amount of allergen.

Omalizumab for the Treatment of Multiple Food Allergies.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. METHODS: In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. RESULTS: Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).

Risk calculator of the clinical response to antihistamines in chronic urticaria: Development and internal validation.

Early detection of CSU patients with low probability of a clinical response with antihistamines could undergo prompt initiation of therapeutic alternatives. The aim of the study was to develop and internally validate a model for predicting the clinical response to antihistamines in adult patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), who consult allergology and dermatology care centers. A cohort of CSU patients, recruited from four participating centers, were followed up for 12 months. Fifteen candidate variables were selected to be included in the multivariate model and then internal validation was done with bootstrap analysis with 1000 simulations. The outcome variable, clinical response to antihistamines, was evaluated with the UAS (Urticaria Activity Score) scale for seven days: "No response to antihistamines" was defined as UAS7 ≥7 points after at least one month with a maximum dose of antihistamines, while "Response to antiH1" was defined as UAS7 ≤6 points for at least three months with the use of antiH1. A total of 790 patients were included. Among the different models analyzed, the model that included age, angioedema, anxiety/depression, time with the disease, NSAIDs (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) intolerance, and UAS7 baseline was considered the one with the best performance (accuracy 0.675, HL 0.87, AUC 0.727). The internal validation analyses demonstrated good consistency of the model. In conclusion, this prediction model identifies the probability of response to antihistamines in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. The model could be useful for a personalized therapeutic approach according to individual patient risk.

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.