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.

Biomarker Predictors of Clinical Efficacy of the Anti-IgE Biologic, Omalizumab, in Severe Asthma in Adults: Results of the SoMOSA Study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-IgE monoclonal, omalizumab, is widely used for severe asthma. This study aimed to identify biomarkers that predict clinical improvement during one year of omalizumab treatment. METHODS: 1-year, open-label, Study of Mechanisms of action of Omalizumab in Severe Asthma (SoMOSA) involving 216 severe (GINA step 4/5) uncontrolled atopic asthmatics (≥2 severe exacerbations in previous year) on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß-agonists, ± mOCS. It had two phases: 0-16 weeks, to assess early clinical improvement by Global Evaluation of Therapeutic Effectiveness (GETE), and 16-52 weeks, to assess late responses by ≥50% reduction in exacerbations or dose of maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS). All participants provided samples (exhaled breath, blood, sputum, urine) before and after 16 weeks of omalizumab treatment. RESULTS: 191 patients completed phase 1; 63% had early improvement. Of 173 who completed phase 2, 69% had reduced exacerbations by ≥50%, while 57% (37/65) on mOCS reduced their dose by ≥50%. The primary outcome 2, 3-dinor-11-ß-PGF2α, GETE and standard clinical biomarkers (blood and sputum eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide, serum IgE) did not predict either clinical response. Five breathomics (GC-MS) and 5 plasma lipid biomarkers strongly predicted the ≥50% reduction in exacerbations (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC): 0.780 and 0.922, respectively) and early responses (AUC:0.835 and 0.949, respectively). In independent cohorts, the GC-MS biomarkers differentiated between severe and mild asthma. Conclusions This is the first discovery of omics biomarkers that predict improvement to a biologic for asthma. Their prospective validation and development for clinical use is justified. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Smaller Differences in the Comparative Effectiveness of Biologics in Reducing Asthma-Related Hospitalizations Compared With Overall Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of respiratory biologics remains sparse. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in a matched retrospective cohort of patients with asthma. METHODS: We identified patients with asthma aged ≥18 years who were incident users of these biologics between November 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023, in administrative claims data from the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database. We compared asthma-related exacerbations and hospitalizations in the 12 months since biologic prescription in pairwise comparisons of propensity score-matched cohorts. Covariates used in matching included age, sex, allergic comorbidities, baseline asthma medications use, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using negative binomial regression models. RESULTS: A total of 893 patients on mepolizumab, 1300 on benralizumab, 1170 on omalizumab, and 1863 on dupilumab were identified. The average age was 55 years, and two-thirds of the participants were female. At baseline, over 80% of these individuals had an active prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Almost half of patients on dupilumab had concomitant nasal polyposis compared with 6% to 13% of patients on the other biologics. Covariates were balanced after matching. In matched analyses, dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of exacerbations over the follow-up period (vs dupilumab): mepolizumab (IRR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.64), omalizumab (IRR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.58), benralizumab (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41). For exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, benralizumab and mepolizumab were associated with the lowest incidence of hospitalizations, and the greatest difference was between mepolizumab versus dupilumab (IRR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of overall exacerbations, and mepolizumab with the lowest incidence of asthma hospitalizations in this administrative claims-based cohort of individuals with asthma. Despite matching propensity scores, residual confounding, such as baseline eosinophil count, may explain some of these findings.

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.

Pharmacoequity in Allergy-Immunology: Disparities in Access to Medications for Allergic Diseases and Proposed Solutions in the United States and Globally.

Pharmacoequity is the principle that individuals should have access to high-quality medications regardless of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or availability of resources. In this review, we summarize access to therapeutics for allergic diseases in the United States and other selected countries. We focus on domains of health care access (health insurance coverage, medication availability, and specialist access) as well as system-level factors and clinician- and patient-level factors such as interpersonal racism and cultural beliefs, and how they can affect timely access to appropriate therapy for allergic diseases. Finally, we propose how pharmacoequity in allergy-immunology can be achieved by highlighting solutions to factors limiting access to medications for allergic diseases, and identify potential future research directions.

Lower myostatin and higher MUC1 levels are associated with better response to mepolizumab and omalizumab in asthma: a protein-protein interaction analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Biomarkers are needed to inform the choice of biologic therapy in patients with asthma given the increasing number of biologics. We aimed to identify proteins associated with response to omalizumab and mepolizumab. METHODS: Aptamer-based proteomic profiling (SomaScan) was used to assess 1437 proteins from 51 patients with moderate to severe asthma who received omalizumab (n = 29) or mepolizumab (n = 22). Response was defined as the change in asthma-related exacerbations in the 12 months following therapy initiation. All models were adjusted for age, sex, and pre-treatment exacerbation rate. Additionally, body mass index was included in the omalizumab model and eosinophil count in the mepolizumab model. We evaluated the association between molecular signatures and response using negative binomial regression correcting for the false discovery rate (FDR) and gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA) to identify associated pathways. RESULTS: Over two-thirds of patients were female. The average age for omalizumab patients was 42 years and 57 years for mepolizumab. At baseline, the average exacerbation rate was 1.5/year for omalizumab and 2.4/year for mepolizumab. Lower levels of LOXL2 (unadjusted p: 1.93 × 10E-05, FDR-corrected: 0.028) and myostatin (unadjusted: 3.87 × 10E-05, FDR-corrected: 0.028) were associated with better response to mepolizumab. Higher levels of CD9 antigen (unadjusted: 5.30 × 10E-07, FDR-corrected: 0.0006) and MUC1 (unadjusted: 1.15 × 10E-06, FDR-corrected: 0.0006) were associated with better response to omalizumab, and LTB4R (unadjusted: 1.12 × 10E-06, FDR-corrected: 0.0006) with worse response. Protein-protein interaction network modeling showed an enrichment of the TNF- and NF-kB signaling pathways for patients treated with mepolizumab and multiple pathways involving MAPK, including the FcER1 pathway, for patients treated with omalizumab. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel fundamental data on proteins associated with response to mepolizumab or omalizumab in severe asthma and warrants further validation as potential biomarkers for therapy selection.

Comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in asthma: A target trial emulation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We emulated a hypothetical randomized trial using electronic health records from a large US-based academic health care system. Participants aged 18 years or older with baseline IgE levels between 30 and 700 IU/mL and peripheral eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL were eligible for study inclusion. The study period extended from March 2016 to August 2021. Outcomes included the incidence of asthma-related exacerbations and change in baseline FEV1 value over 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 68 individuals receiving dupilumab, 68 receiving omalizumab, and 65 receiving mepolizumab met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 exacerbations occurred over 68 person years (0.46 exacerbations per person year) in the dupilumab group, 63 over 68 person years (0.93 per person year) in the omalizumab group, and 86 over 65 person years (1.32 per person year) in the mepolizumab group (adjusted incidence rate ratios: dupilumab vs mepolizumab, 0.28 [95% CI = 0.09-0.84]; dupilumab vs omalizumab, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.12-1.09]; and omalizumab vs mepolizumab, 0.78 [95% CI = 0.32-1.91]). The differences in the change in FEV1 comparing patients who received the different biologics were as follows: 0.11 L (95% CI = -0.003 to 0.222 L) for dupilumab versus mepolizumab, 0.082 L (95% CI -0.040 to 0.204 L) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, and 0.026 L (95% CI -0.083 to 0.140 L) for omalizumab versus mepolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with asthma and eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/µL and IgE levels of 30 to 700 kU/L, dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in exacerbation and FEV1 value than omalizumab and mepolizumab.

Incidence of Anti-Drug Antibodies to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved for the treatment of asthma in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the incidence of ADAs and their impact on reported clinical outcomes. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, open-label extension studies, and nonrandomized studies of biologics in patients with asthma indexed in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL between January 1, 2000, and July 9, 2022, were carried out. The primary outcomes were treatment-emergent ADAs (incidence) and ADA prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 46 studies met the eligibility criteria. ADA incidence over follow-up was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.60-4.55) and was highest in the benralizumab studies (8.35%), with a risk ratio of 4.9 (2.69-8.92) when compared with placebo, and lowest in the omalizumab studies (0.00%). Incidence was 7.61% in the dupilumab studies, 4.39% in reslizumab, 3.63% in mepolizumab, and 1.12% in the tezepelumab studies. Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was 0.00% to 10.74% and was highest for benralizumab (7.12%). Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was higher in the benralizumab every 8 weeks (8.17%) versus every 4 weeks arms (5.81%). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses by study type and length of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2.9% of individuals in the included studies developed ADAs over study follow-up period. The incidence was highest in the benralizumab group and lowest in the omalizumab group. The subcutaneous route and longer dosing intervals were associated with higher ADA development.

Comparative efficacy of tezepelumab to mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma. OBJECTIVES: We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV1 compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV1 by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV1 by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.

Comparative efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV1, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV1: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/µL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV1. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4). CONCLUSION: There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.

Rituximab-associated hypogammaglobulinemia in ANCA-associated vasculitis: Incidence and time course.

OBJECTIVE: Rituximab (RTX) is approved for remission induction and maintenance of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). Observational studies demonstrate decline in immunoglobulin (IgG) in AAV post-RTX. The time course for the onset of hypogammaglobulinemia (Hypo-IgG) post-RTX is unknown. This is a key determinant in deciding whether to continue RTX for reinduction or maintenance of remission for AAV. We evaluated the trends of Hypo-IgG among AAV patients post-RTX therapies. METHODS: An observational single-tertiary-center study of AAV patients treated with RTX for remission induction or maintenance (induction therapy, maintenance therapy, and combined induction and maintenance therapy) between 1998 and 2018. Poisson regression was used to compare the inciden- ces of Hypo-IgG: mild (450-700 mg dL-1), moderate (200-450 mg dL-1), and severe (􏰃200 mg dL-1). Ig levels were measured every 3-6 months after RTX use. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age at last visit was 59 (16) years, 93% were Caucasians, 64% were females, and 71 (63%) had granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Hypo-IgG occurred in 47 patients: one (2%) severe, 13 (28%) moderate, and 33 (70%) mild. Lower incidences of mild Hypo-IgG post-RTX were seen during induction compared to maintenance (IR 5.04 per 100 000 days vs 5.45 per 100 000 days, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.34, 3.19). Moderate Hypo-IgG occurred at 2.29 per 100 000 days during induc- tion and 1.82 per 100 000 days during maintenance (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.08, 4.84). CONCLUSION: Hypo-IgG is common among AAV treated with RTX, occurring in 42% of patients in this single-center cohort. The nadir IgG levels occur during remission induction, and the IgG levels remain relatively stable or increase over time in those receiving RTX for remission maintenance.