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.

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.

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.

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.

[Omalizumab Treats Aspirin-Induced Asthma Complicated With Nasosinusitis and Otitis Media:Report of One Case].

Omalizumab,as a biological agent targeting IgE,is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody and the first targeted drug approved for treating moderate-to-severe bronchial asthma.By reviewing one case of aspirin-induced asthma complicated with nasosinusitis and otitis media,we discussed the value of omalizumab in the treatment of asthma and its complications,aiming to provide a reference for clinical practice.

Omalizumab for Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in real-world clinical setting: a prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This single-centre, prospective, observational study included Chinese patients aged 14-75 years with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma according to the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. Omalizumab was administered subcutaneously, and the investigator collected real-world data on exacerbations, steroid exposure, pulmonary function and laboratory assessments at weeks 16, 24, 52, 104 and 156 after treatment initiation. The primary outcome was reduced exacerbations, measured as the proportion of patients with exacerbations in the year following omalizumab initiation. Bowker's test for paired proportions was performed to compare exacerbation rates before and after treatment initiation. A generalised linear mixed model was used to compare the number of exacerbations. RESULTS: The mean treatment duration was 46.6 weeks for the full analysis set (n=398). The proportion of patients with exacerbations in the year before and after omalizumab initiation was 80.4% (181/225) and 18.7% (42/225) (difference: -61.8%, 95% CI -68.5 to -54.0, p<0.0001), respectively. At week 52, 67.4% of patients discontinued oral corticosteroids, and 19.5% reduced inhaled corticosteroids. The Asthma Control Test scores increased by 4.6 at week 52 from baseline (p<0.001). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s increased by 11.2% and 9.0% at weeks 24 and 52, respectively, from baseline (p<0.01). Injection site reactions (5.2%) were the most frequently reported adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice, omalizumab treatment remarkably reduced exacerbations in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Omalizumab reduced the use of oral corticosteroids and improved asthma control and pulmonary function.

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab Updosing in Chronic Urticaria: A Retrospective Study.

Omalizumab is an effective and safe treatment option with licensed doses in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU); however, some patients are not responsive to licensed doses and require updosing. As studies concerning updosing were insufficient, the present study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab updosing (300 mg every 2 weeks) in CSU patients. Data of CSU patients treated with omalizumab were analyzed retrospectively. As an outcome measure, physician assessment of treatment response (complete response [CR], partial response, and unresponsiveness) was used. In all, 49 patients depicting CR to omalizumab 300 mg every 4 weeks and 54 patients treated with omalizumab 300 mg every 2 weeks were included in the study. Mean duration of the disease in updosing group was significantly lengthier than the CR group. The mean percentage level of eosinophils and basophils was significantly higher in the CR group. The history of systemic corticosteroid and oral cyclosporine treatment was significantly more frequent in the updosing group. Treatment with omalizumab 300 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks led to CR in 41 patients (75.9%). Our results confirmed the efficacy and safety of omalizumab updosing. Low baso-phil and eosinophil levels could also be important factors in defining the need for updosing.

Omalizumab Treatment in Uncontrolled Asthma and CRSwNP Patients, with Previous Endoscopic Sinus Surgery, to Improve Quality of Life and Endoscopic Outcomes: a Two-Year Real-Life Study.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite molecular underlying advances, limited and divergent data on monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) make further analysis necessary. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of omalizumab as an adjunct to endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on the treatment of CRSwNP under real-life conditions. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the introduction of omalizumab, as the first biologic agent for the treatment of diseases such as severe allergic asthma, different studies have demonstrated an effect of omalizumab on CRSwNP, with significant improvements in sinonasal symptoms and endoscopic scores. The high efficacy derived from mAb therapy and the need for ESS prior to mAb recommended by guidelines, has led to compare both therapeutic alternatives, finding discrepancies in their effect on quality of life (QoL) and complementary tests outcomes. Patients with moderate-to-severe asthma with clinical criteria for omalizumab indication, and coexistent CRSwNP disease, were selected for a non-randomized interventional retrospective study into four treatment subgroups. Measures were analyzed and compared between groups and over time at the baseline, 16 weeks and 1 and 2 years after treatment. Omalizumab treatment in patients with previous ESS exhibited an earlier and more pronounced improvement in QoL, symptoms scale and endoscopic findings (nasal polyp score and the bilateral modified Lund-Kennedy) as early from week 16, which improvement persisted for 2 years. A greater mean improvement of 33.4 ± 6.5 (95% CI: 20.3-46.4; p < 0.001) points in sinonasal outcome test 22 (SNOT-22) was associated with ESS at week 16, against omalizumab effect (17.8 ± 7.6 [95% CI: 2.6-33.0]; p = 0.023). At year 2, an improvement in SNOT-22 of 62.6 ± 8.9 (95% CI: 48.4-84.1; p < 0.001) points was exclusively associated with omalizumab. Clinical evidence of the effect of omalizumab added to ESS treatment is provided in this study in the short- and long-term.

Effects of omalizumab combined with budesonide formoterol on clinical efficacy, pulmonary function, immune function, and adverse reactions in children with moderate and severe allergic asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combining omalizumab with budesonide formoterol to treat children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, and investigate the effect of this combination therapy on pulmonary and immune functions. METHODS: The data of 88 children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, who were admitted to our hospital between July 2021 and July 2022, were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned either to control group (n = 44; received budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) or experimental group (n = 44; received omalizumab subcutaneous injection + budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) using computer-generated randomization. The clinical efficacy, asthma control (measured using childhood Asthma-Control Test [C-ACT] score), pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced vital capacity, and peak expiratory flow), immune function (cluster of differentiation 3 cells [CD3+ cells], cluster of differentiation 4 cells [CD4+ cells], immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, and immunoglobulin E), and adverse reactions were observed and compared between both groups. RESULTS: After treatment, the experimental group had improved levels of pulmonary function and immune function indexes, higher C-ACT scores, and a higher overall response rate than the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions was not significantly different between both groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of omalizumab with budesonide formoterol for treating moderate and severe allergic asthma in children demonstrated promising clinical efficacy and improved their pulmonary and immune functions, leading to more rational asthma control. The combined regimen demonstrated satisfactory clinical safety and deserved clinical promotion.

Efficacy and safety of switching between biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps or N-ERD.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of biologics in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is well-established. However, real-world experience on the effectiveness of transitioning between two monoclonal antibodies is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the safety and efficacy of antibody switching in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. METHODS: All patients with CRSwNP or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) requiring a switch between biologics were retrospectively studied. Analysis included changes in polyp size, quality of life parameters, asthma control, and side effects. RESULTS: Out of 195 patients treated with biologics for CRSwNP or N-ERD in our center, 23 (11.8%) required transition to a different monoclonal antibody. The majority switched from omalizumab to dupilumab (17/23, 73.9%), mostly due to inadequate symptom control. Nine out of these 17 patients (52.9%) were switched without a washout period. All patients showed significant improvement in nasal polyp score, asthma control test and sino-nasal outcome test-22 after changing to dupilumab. Keratoconjunctivitis sicca was the side-effect (4.3%) reported after the switch from omalizumab to dupilumab, which lead to termination of therapy in one patient. Due to limited sample size, other antibody transitions were reported in a descriptive manner. CONCLUSION: The transition to dupilumab is an effective option in patients with inadequate treatment response or side-effects of omalizumab in nasal polyposis. Our preliminary results indicate that a wash-out period may not be necessary when switching between biologics, however, these findings require further investigations. Other monoclonal antibody transitions also show promising results, but warrant validations in larger cohorts due to small patient samples in our study.

Omalizumab in Severe Asthma: Effect on Oral Corticosteroid Exposure and Remodeling. A Randomized Open-Label Parallel Study.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the clinical efficacy and remodeling of omalizumab therapy in patients on oral corticosteroids (OC) are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to show that in patients with corticosteroid-dependent asthma, omalizumab is a corticosteroid-sparing therapy able to inhibit airway remodeling and to reduce disease burden (lung function impairment, exacerbations). METHODS: This study is a randomised open-label study evaluating the addition of omalizumab to the standard of care in patients with severe asthma receiving oral corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was represented by the change in OC monthly dose by the end of treatment and secondary endpoints included spirometry changes, airway inflammation (FeNO), number of exacerbations and airways remodelling assessed by bronchial biopsies studied by transmission electron microscopy. As a safety variable, adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: Efficacy was assessed for 16 patients in the omalizumab group and 13 in the control group. The final cumulative mean monthly OC doses were 34.7 mg and 217 mg for the omalizumab and control group, respectively; the mean difference between groups adjusted for baseline was -148.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) -243.6, -52.5; p = 0.004]. OC withdrawal of 75% versus 7.7% (p = 0.001) was observed in the omalizumab and control group, respectively. Omalizumab provided a slowing of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) loss (70 mL versus 260 mL), a significant decrease in FeNO values and a reduction in the annual relative risk of clinically significant exacerbations of 54%. The treatment was well tolerated. The morphological study showed a significant decrease in basement membrane thickness in the omalizumab group (6.7 µm versus 4.6 µm) compared with controls (6.9 µm versus 7 µm) [mean difference between groups adjusted for baseline was -2.4 (95% CI -3.7, -1.2; p < 0.001], as well as a decrease in intercellular spaces (1.18 µm versus 0.62 µm and 1.21 µm versus 1.20 µm, p = 0.011, respectively). A qualitative improvement was also observed in the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab showed a marked OC-sparing capacity and was associated with an improvement in clinical management that correlated with bronchial epithelial repair. In OC-dependent asthma, reversibility of remodelling is possible; the concepts that basement membrane enlargement is detrimental and that chronic airway obstruction is systematically irreversible are outdated (EudraCT: 2009-010914-31).