-
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious...
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious adverse events. Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab should be explored as alternative treatment options to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab treatment outcomes in bullous pemphigoid.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library search were conducted on March 10, 2022. A total of 75 studies were included using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Use of rituximab (n=122), omalizumab (n=53) and dupilumab (n=36) were reported in 211 patients with BP. Rituximab led to complete remission in 70.5% (n=86/122) and partial remission in 23.8% (n=29/122) of patients within 5.7 months, with a recurrence rate of 20.5% (n=25/122). 9.0% (n=11/122) of patients died and infection (6.6%, n=8/122) was the most common adverse event. Omalizumab led to complete remission in 67.9% (n=36/53) and partial remission in 20.8% (n=11/53) of patients within 6.6 months, with a recurrence rate of 5.7% (n=3/53). 1.9% (n=1/53) of patients died and thrombocytopenia (1.9%, n=1/53) was observed as the most common adverse event. Dupilumab led to complete remission in 66.7% (n=24/36) and partial remission in 19.4% (n=7/36) of patients within 4.5 months of treatment without any reported adverse events, with a recurrence rate of 5.6% (n=2/36).
CONCLUSIONS
Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab have similar clinical benefits for BP patients. However, rituximab resulted in higher recurrence rates, adverse events, and mortality rates.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022316454.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Omalizumab; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Rituximab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35769474
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.928621 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2023A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
METHODS
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Immunoglobulin E; Desensitization, Immunologic; Administration, Oral; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Milk
PubMed: 36529441
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.11.036 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case series and cohort studies; however, evidence to support its routine clinical use is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with ABPA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search across standard databases using specific key words until May 13, 2021. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness (exacerbations, oral corticosteroid [OCS] use, lung function, and patient-reported asthma control) and safety of pre- and post-omalizumab treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for treatment duration and underlying disease.
RESULTS
In total, 49 studies (n = 267) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 14 case series (n = 186) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Omalizumab treatment significantly reduced the annualized exacerbation rate compared with pretreatment (mean difference, -2.09 [95% CI, -3.07 to -1.11]; P < .01). There was a reduction in OCS use (risk difference, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.84]; P < .01), an increase in termination of OCS use (risk difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.24-0.82]; P < .01), and a reduction in OCS dose (milligrams per day) (mean difference, -14.62 [95% CI, -19.86 to -9.39]; P < .01) in ABPA patients receiving omalizumab. Omalizumab improved FEV % predicted by 11.9% (95% CI, 8.2-15.6; P < .01) and asthma control, and was well-tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS
Omalizumab treatment reduced exacerbations and OCS use, improved lung function and asthma control in patients with ABPA, and was well-tolerated. The results highlight the potential role of omalizumab in the treatment of ABPA.
Topics: Humans; Omalizumab; Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary; Cystic Fibrosis; Asthma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 36581073
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.012 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2022Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is an inflammatory condition of the upper airways. Optimal management is unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies and aspirin desensitization for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is an inflammatory condition of the upper airways. Optimal management is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We compared the effects of mAbs and aspirin desensitization (ASA-D) for treatment of CRSwNP.
METHODS
We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and the European Medicines Agency databases from inception to August 4, 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of mAbs and ASA-D for CRSwNP. We conducted network meta-analysis of sinusitis symptoms, heath-related quality of life, rescue oral corticosteroids and surgery, endoscopic and radiologic scores, and adverse events. We used the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty of evidence. PROSPERO CRD42020177334.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials evaluating 8 treatments (n = 3461) were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, moderate to high certainty evidence showed that health-related quality of life (SNOT-22) improved with dupilumab (mean difference [MD] -19.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) -22.50, -17.32]), omalizumab (MD -16.09 [95% CI -19.88, -12.30]), mepolizumab (MD -12.89 [95% CI -16.58, -9.19], ASA-D (MD -10.61 [95% CI -14.51, -6.71]), and benralizumab (MD -7.68 [95% CI -12.09, -3.27]). The risk of rescue nasal polyp surgery likely decreased with dupilumab (risk difference [RD] -16.35% [95% CI -18.13, -13.48]), omalizumab (RD -7.40% [95% CI -11.04, -2.43]), mepolizumab (RD -12.33% [95% CI -15.56, -7.22]), and ASA-D (RD -16.00% [95% CI -19.79, 0.21]; all moderate certainty). Comparisons among agents show with moderate to high certainty that dupilumab ranks among the most beneficial for 7 of 7 outcomes, omalizumab for 2 of 7, mepolizumab for 1 of 7, and ASA-D for 1 of 7.
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple biologics and ASA-D credibly improve patient-important outcomes, with clinically important differences in effects among agents; dupilumab uniquely ranks among the most beneficial for all outcomes studied.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Aspirin; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Network Meta-Analysis; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Sinusitis
PubMed: 34543652
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.09.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps. 'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9). It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bias; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33710614
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013513.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.
Topics: Cetirizine; Cyproheptadine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Loratadine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urticaria
PubMed: 25397904
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006137.pub2 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.
PubMed: 37496824
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S410592 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... May 2023Antidrug 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... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Omalizumab; Incidence; Asthma; Biological Products; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36716995
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.046 -
Journal of Medical Economics 2022To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Eosinophils; Humans; Omalizumab
PubMed: 35570578
DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2074195 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2022Omalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Omalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine two critical outcomes of omalizumab therapy, asthma exacerbation rate, the reduction of the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and the improvement of the lung function as a secondary outcome using the following keywords in the MEDLINE database: "anti-IgE, severe asthma, children, and randomized controlled trial." We specifically selected papers that included moderate-to-severe asthma patients and collected data on children and adolescents.
RESULTS
Four RCT studies (total number of patients = 1,239) were included in the analysis. The reported data on exacerbations showed an overall improvement in the exacerbation rate with a decreased use of inhaled steroids and some other minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review confirms the known findings that omalizumab therapy decreases asthma exacerbation rate and reduces background therapy inhaled steroid dose. Therefore, add-on therapy with omalizumab shows a good efficacy and safety profile, thus proving to be a useful additional therapeutic option.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023396785.
PubMed: 36937051
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.1033511