Comparative efficacy and safety of the treatment by Omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria in the general population: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab is the only licensed drug that serves as a third-line treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The optimum doses of omalizumab remain controversial. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases were searched from the database's creation to April 8, 2023. Several keywords such as omalizumab and urticarias were used to retrieve related studies. The meta-analytical outcomes were analyzed in R 4.2.1 software and Stata 15.1 software. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool Ver. 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: In total, 2331 patients were included. Five indexes were employed to assess, including weekly Itch Severity Score (ISS7), weekly Hive Severity Score (HSS7), weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse events (AE). A 300 mg dose of omalizumab was the optimum dose to treat CIU, followed by the 150 mg dose. Furthermore, 600 mg of omalizumab only showed a significant difference from the placebo in HSS7. No significant statistical difference was observed in AE. Meta-regression analysis revealed that time, as a covariate, was statistically significant in the comparison of omalizumab 150 mg with placebo. CONCLUSION: 300 mg of omalizumab was the optimum dosage to treat CIU patients, with a 150 mg dose also exhibiting good efficacy. Further studies are required to explore the efficacy and safety of different doses of omalizumab in the treatment of CIU patients.

[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.

Dupilumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (LIBERTY-CSU CUPID): Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by recurrent pruritic wheals (hives) and/or angioedema. Patients with CSU could remain symptomatic despite standard-of-care H1 antihistamines (H1-AH) or anti-IgE (omalizumab) treatment. Dupilumab blocks IL-4/IL-13 signaling and is approved for multiple type 2/atopic indications. OBJECTIVE: We conducted two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials comparing dupilumab with placebo in patients with symptomatic CSU despite H1-AH. METHODS: In LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, patients were omalizumab-naive (n = 138, aged ≥6 years). In Study B, patients were omalizumab-intolerant/incomplete responders (n = 108, aged ≥12 years). The primary end point was either change from baseline over 7 days in the Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) or Itch Severity Score (ISS7) at week 24, with the other as a key secondary end point, depending on regional regulatory requirements. Studies were pooled for safety assessment. RESULTS: In Study A, UAS7 and ISS7 improved with dupilumab versus placebo (difference -8.5 [95% CI, -13.2 to -3.9; P = .0003] and -4.2 [95% CI, -6.6 to -1.8; P = .0005]). In Study B, tested at α = 0.043 after interim analysis, UAS7 improved (difference -5.8 [95% CI, -11.4 to -0.3; P = .0390]), with a numerical trend in ISS7 (difference -2.9 [95% CI, -5.7 to -0.07; nominal P = .0449, not significant]). Pooled safety data were consistent between dupilumab and placebo and with the known dupilumab safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab reduced urticaria activity by reducing itch and hives severity in omalizumab-naive patients with CSU uncontrolled with H1-AH. Although the primary end point for Study B was not met, dupilumab effects were small in patients who were omalizumab-intolerant/incomplete responders.

[Biologic therapy in patients with severe NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease and previous aspirin desensitization : Results of a multicentric study]. / Biologikatherapie bei schwer erkrankten Patienten mit "NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease" und stattgehabter ASS­Desaktivierung : Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen Studie.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a type­2 inflammatory disease of the upper airways, with severe impairment of quality of life. Persons affected by NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD) usually present with highly dynamic recurrence of polyps and disease despite prior treatment with sinus surgeries, oral corticosteroids, and aspirin desensitization (ATAD). Biologic therapy has fundamentally changed the choice of therapeutic concept; however, limited data exist on subgroups such as NERD patients. The aim of the current article is to report on a multicenter retrospective study on add-on therapy with dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab in patients with NERD. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients (NERD+, status after ATAD) in three reference centers in Germany (Munich, Mainz, Berlin). Subjective and objective parameters were collected at 4, 8, and 12 months after biologic therapy initiation in accordance with current EPOS/EUFOREA (European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps/European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases) guidelines. Biologic agents were chosen depending on availability and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Treatment was commenced in 122 patients meeting the criteria for CRSwNP and NERD. The endoscopic polyp score, SNOT-22 questionnaire score, visual analogue scoring of total symptoms/severity of disease, and sense of smell (psychophysical testing with Sniffin'Sticks/Brief Smell Identification Test, B­SIT; Sensonics, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ, USA) improved significantly after 4 and 12 months of add-on therapy (p < 0.0001). All three biologic agents significantly improved one or more disease parameter. Adverse events were not life threatening but led to change of biologic agent in 4 cases. Patients rated biologic therapy significantly better than ATAD, with improved long-term disease control. CONCLUSION: Add-on biologic therapy is effective, safe, and widely accepted among CRSwNP + NERD patients. Future studies might allow for personalized algorithms with sequential surgery, ATAD, and/or biologic therapy.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

Solar Urticaria: An Ambispective Study in a Long-term Follow-up Cohort with Emphasis on Therapeutic Predictors and Outcomes.

Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis with several unknown pathogenic, clinical and therapeutic aspects. This study analysed the clinical and therapeutic features of a long-term follow-up solar urticaria cohort, with a focus on omalizumab management and outcomes, and characterized omalizumab response with the use of the high-affinity immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and the Urticaria Control Test. An observational, unicentric, ambispective study was conducted from 2007 to 2023. Solar urticaria was diagnosed in 41 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months. Thirteen patients were prescribed omalizumab, with a median treatment time of 48 months. A significant decrease in FcεRI baseline levels and subsequent median increase in Urticaria Control Test was evidenced after omalizumab prescription in all patients. Drug survival at 48 months was at 88.9%. Omalizumab stepping-down protocol led to sustained omalizumab discontinuation in only 1 patient. Median basal Urticaria Control Test was lower (p < 0.01) in patients who were prescribed omalizumab and in patients without remission. This study contributes to our knowledge of omalizumab outcomes in real-life clinical practice and highlights the pathogenic importance of IgE-mediated pathways in solar urticaria, where FcεRI emerges as a possible biomarker of omalizumab response.

Safety of omalizumab in chronic urticaria during pregnancy: a real-life study.

BACKGROUND: Managing a pregnant patient with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is often challenging. Recent data have shown that most CSU treatments in pregnant patients are second-generation H1 antihistamines (sgAHs), while data on the safety of omalizumab are scant. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in a routine clinical practice setting, the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with severe CSU refractory to sgAHs who either became pregnant during treatment or who started the drug during pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of women aged ≥ 18 years who were pregnant, who received one or more doses of omalizumab at any time during their pregnancy or who were taking omalizumab at the time of, or in the 8 weeks before, conception. RESULTS: Twenty-nine pregnant patients were evaluated: 23 (79%) conceived a child while taking omalizumab (group A), while 6 (21%) started omalizumab treatment during pregnancy (group B). Among patients in group A, we observed 23 births (21 liveborn singletons and 1 liveborn twin pair) and 1 miscarriage. Fifteen (65%) patients discontinued omalizumab after confirming their pregnancy, while eight (35%) were exposed to omalizumab during their entire pregnancy. In group B, omalizumab was introduced at a mean (SD) 10.83 (3.60) weeks' gestation and all patients were exposed to it until the end of pregnancy. In this group, there were seven liveborn infants (five singletons and one twin pair). No adverse events, pregnancy complications or congenital anomalies in newborns were recorded in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab for CSU treatment before and during pregnancy does not appear to have negative effects on maternal or fetal outcomes.

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.

Efficacy and safety of ligelizumab in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies. METHODS: PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab. INTERPRETATION: In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma.

A Randomized, Single-Dose, Parallel-Controlled Phase 1 Clinical Comparison of an Omalizumab Biosimilar Candidate with Reference Omalizumab in Healthy Chinese Male Volunteers.

This study evaluated the bioequivalence of omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against immunoglobulin-E (IgE), with one of its biosimilar candidates. The study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial. A total of subjects who met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the exclusion criteria were dynamically randomly assigned to receive the test drug or the reference drug with a single subcutaneous injection of 150 mg by the minimization method. The test group and the reference group had similar demographic characteristics and baseline characteristics of total IgE. The 90% confidence interval of the geometric average ratio of the area under the serum concentration-time curve from the time 0 to the time of last quantifiable concentration, the area under the serum concentration curve from time 0 to infinity, and the maximum observed serum concentration between the 2 groups were within 80%-125%, showing bioequivalence. The changing trend of total and free IgE in the 2 groups was similar after administration, proving the pharmacodynamic similarity. The 2 groups had no significant difference in the positive rate of antidrug antibodies, and the total positive rate of neutralizing antibodies was 0. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar between the 2 groups, with no serious adverse events. This study shows that the test drug had similar pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and safety to the reference omalizumab in healthy male subjects.

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.

Characterizing Adverse Events of Biologic Treatment of T2 Disease: A Disproportionality Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last 3 years, the FDA has approved dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab for the treatment of CRSwNP; however, adverse events of these biologics have not been described in post-marketing surveillance trials. By utilizing the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), this study describes and compares biologic-associated adverse events in T2 disease. METHODS: This case-non-case study assessed disproportionate reporting rates using reporting odds ratios (RORs). RORs and p values for biologic-associated AEs were categorized and compared among dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab. This analysis included AEs associated with all treatment indications. Relative AE rates and outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: There were a total of 112,560, 24,428, and 18,741 unique AE reports associated with dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab, respectively. Omalizumab had the strongest association with anaphylaxis (ROR = 20.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.58, 23.29). Dupilumab had large relative proportions and positive signals in the ophthalmologic category (7.76%, ROR = 6.20, 95% CI: 6.06, 6.35), such as with blurry vision (ROR = 3.80, CI: 3.52, 4.12) and visual impairment (ROR = 1.98, CI: 1.80, 2.19). Dupilumab was the only biologic associated with injection-site reactions (7.98%, ROR = 8.17, 95% CI: 7.98, 8.37). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This is the first large-scale comparative analysis of the AE profiles of dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab. Our data suggest possible relations between dupilumab and ophthalmologic and injection-site AEs. Omalizumab was the only biologic with a positive anaphylaxis signal. This FAERS investigation suggests important AE differences among these biologics.

Inhibition of KIT for chronic urticaria: a status update on drugs in early clinical development.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic urticaria (CU), including chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU), is a prevalent, enduring, mast-cell driven condition that presents challenges in its management. There is a clear need for additional approved treatment options beyond H1 receptor antagonists and the anti-IgE monoclonal antibody (mAb), omalizumab. One of the latest therapeutic strategies targets KIT, which is considered the primary master regulator for mast cell-related disorders. AREAS COVERED: This review provides a status update on KIT inhibiting drugs in early clinical development for CU. EXPERT OPINION: Whereas multi-targeted tyrosine kinase KIT inhibitors carry the risk of off-target toxicities, initial data from anti-KIT mAbs indicate significant potential in CSU and CIndU. The prolonged depletion of mast cells over several weeks by barzolvolimab could effectively control urticarial symptoms. Regarding safety, based on theoretical considerations and the available preliminary results, it is already evident that there may be more side effects compared to omalizumab. However, long-term safety data beyond 12 weeks are still lacking. The outcome of ongoing or planned clinical trials with several anti-KIT mAbs will need to demonstrate benefits compared to anti-IgE in CU or whether one approach is better suited for specific urticaria endotypes.

A risk of serious anaphylatic reactions to asthma biologics: a pharmacovigilance study based on a global real-world database.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects the lung airways. Chronic use of oral glucocorticoids in patients with severe asthma is associated with several adverse events (AEs). Biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and dupilumab) have been developed as alternative therapies for the treatment of asthma. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the risk of anaphylactic reactions associated with these five biologics based on a large global database. We utilized individual case reports from the Uppsala Monitoring Center from January 1968 to December 29, 2019. A disproportionality analysis was performed over all drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Anaphylactic reactions were defined according to the "anaphylactic reaction" of the standardized MedDRA queries. Contrary to dupilumab, omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab demonstrated positive signals related to anaphylactic reactions over all drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Reslizumab, which represented only 315 cases of all AEs, requires more reports to determine its association with anaphylactic reactions. More anaphylactic reactions have been identified than are known, and most cases (96.2%) are reported to be serious. Our findings indicate that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab for asthma treatment are associated with a high risk of anaphylactic reactions; thus, more careful monitoring in the post-administration period is recommended.