-
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Feb 2018Urticaria is a common, mast cell-driven disease presenting with wheals or angioedema or both. In the last years, urticaria has increasingly attracted notice to... (Review)
Review
Urticaria is a common, mast cell-driven disease presenting with wheals or angioedema or both. In the last years, urticaria has increasingly attracted notice to clinicians and researchers, last but not least inspired by the approval of omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, for urticaria treatment. There is wide consensus on the clinical classification based on duration and elicitation. However, the pathogenesis is incompletely understood. This review summarizes current guidelines for the management and novel insights in the pathogenesis of urticaria with special focus on their impact on clinical praxis. The classification of urticaria subgroups is mainly based on clinical criteria: acute and chronic urticaria (CU). Chronic urticaria comprises both chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) that includes physical and non-physical urticarias. Recent research focused on characterizing the role of cells and mediators involved in the pathogenesis of urticaria, identifying the mechanisms of mast cell activation, and investigating underlying autoimmune processes in chronic spontaneous urticarial. Currently, non-sedating antihistamines and omalizumab, an antiimmunoglobulin E antibody, are recommended for the therapy of chronic urticaria, as both exhibit a favorable efficacy and safety profile. Novel therapeutic strategies aim at specifically targeting cells and mediators involved in the pathogenesis of urticaria.
Topics: Angioedema; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Chronic Disease; Humans; Mast Cells; Omalizumab; Urticaria
PubMed: 28748365
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-017-8628-1 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Sep 2020Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by IgE hyperproduction and eosinophilic inflammation. The anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by IgE hyperproduction and eosinophilic inflammation. The anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with CRSwNP and comorbid asthma previously.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to determine omalizumab safety and efficacy in CRSwNP in phase 3 trials (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2).
METHODS
Adults with CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids were randomized (1:1) to omalizumab or placebo and intranasal mometasone for 24 weeks. Coprimary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, sense of smell, postnasal drip, runny nose, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Patients in POLYP 1 (n = 138) and POLYP 2 (n = 127) exhibited severe CRSwNP and substantial quality of life impairment evidenced by a mean NPS higher than 6 and SNOT-22 score of approximately 60. Both studies met both the coprimary end points. SNOT-22 score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score, sense of smell, postnasal drip, and runny nose were also significantly improved for omalizumab versus placebo. In POLYP 1 and POLYP 2, the mean changes from baseline at week 24 for omalizumab versus placebo were as follows: NPS, -1.08 versus 0.06 (P < .0001) and -0.90 versus -0.31 (P = .0140); Nasal Congestion Score, -0.89 versus -0.35 (P = .0004) and -0.70 versus -0.20 (P = .0017); and SNOT-22 score, -24.7 versus -8.6 (P < .0001) and -21.6 versus -6.6 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids, and it was well tolerated.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32524991
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... May 2023Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness. (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
BACKGROUND
Multiple mAbs are currently approved for the treatment of asthma. However, there is limited evidence on their comparative effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma.
METHODS
We emulated a hypothetical randomized trial using electronic health records from a large US-based academic health care system. Participants aged 18 years or older with baseline IgE levels between 30 and 700 IU/mL and peripheral eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/μL were eligible for study inclusion. The study period extended from March 2016 to August 2021. Outcomes included the incidence of asthma-related exacerbations and change in baseline FEV value over 12 months of follow-up.
RESULTS
In all, 68 individuals receiving dupilumab, 68 receiving omalizumab, and 65 receiving mepolizumab met the inclusion criteria. Over 12 months of follow-up, 31 exacerbations occurred over 68 person years (0.46 exacerbations per person year) in the dupilumab group, 63 over 68 person years (0.93 per person year) in the omalizumab group, and 86 over 65 person years (1.32 per person year) in the mepolizumab group (adjusted incidence rate ratios: dupilumab vs mepolizumab, 0.28 [95% CI = 0.09-0.84]; dupilumab vs omalizumab, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.12-1.09]; and omalizumab vs mepolizumab, 0.78 [95% CI = 0.32-1.91]). The differences in the change in FEV comparing patients who received the different biologics were as follows: 0.11 L (95% CI = -0.003 to 0.222 L) for dupilumab versus mepolizumab, 0.082 L (95% CI -0.040 to 0.204 L) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, and 0.026 L (95% CI -0.083 to 0.140 L) for omalizumab versus mepolizumab.
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with asthma and eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells/μL and IgE levels of 30 to 700 kU/L, dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in exacerbation and FEV value than omalizumab and mepolizumab.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Immunoglobulin E; Omalizumab; Comparative Effectiveness Research
PubMed: 36740144
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.01.020 -
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 -
American Journal of Respiratory and... Feb 2019Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma have disproportionally high morbidity and healthcare utilization as compared with their peers with well-controlled disease.... (Review)
Review
Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma have disproportionally high morbidity and healthcare utilization as compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Although treatment options for these patients were previously limited, with unacceptable side effects, the emergence of biologic therapies for the treatment of asthma has provided promising targeted therapy for these patients. Biologic therapies target specific inflammatory pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma, particularly in patients with an endotype driven by type 2 (T2) inflammation. In addition to anti-IgE therapy that has improved outcomes in allergic asthma for more than a decade, three anti-IL-5 biologics and one anti-IL-4R biologic have recently emerged as promising treatments for T2 asthma. These targeted therapies have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce oral corticosteroid use, and improve quality of life in appropriately selected patients. In addition to the currently approved biologic agents, several biologics targeting upstream inflammatory mediators are in clinical trials, with possible approval on the horizon. This article reviews the mechanism of action, indications, expected benefits, and side effects of each of the currently approved biologics for severe uncontrolled asthma and discusses promising therapeutic targets for the future.
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Humans; Omalizumab
PubMed: 30525902
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201810-1944CI -
The New England Journal of Medicine Oct 2019In the majority of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, most currently available therapies do not result in complete symptom control. Ligelizumab is a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
In the majority of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, most currently available therapies do not result in complete symptom control. Ligelizumab is a next-generation high-affinity humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody. Data are limited regarding the dose-response relationship of ligelizumab and the efficacy and safety of ligelizumab as compared with omalizumab and placebo in patients who have moderate-to-severe chronic spontaneous urticaria that is inadequately controlled with H-antihistamines at approved or increased doses, alone or in combination with H-antihistamines or leukotriene-receptor antagonists.
METHODS
In a phase 2b dose-finding trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive ligelizumab at a dose of 24 mg, 72 mg, or 240 mg, omalizumab at a dose of 300 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for a period of 20 weeks, or a single 120-mg dose of ligelizumab. Disease symptoms of hives, itch, and angioedema were monitored by means of weekly activity scores. The main objective was to determine a dose-response relationship for the complete control of hives (indicated by a weekly hives-severity score of 0, on a scale from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater severity); the primary end point of this response was assessed at week 12. Complete symptom control was indicated by a weekly urticaria activity score of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Safety was analyzed throughout the trial.
RESULTS
A total of 382 patients underwent randomization. At week 12, a total of 30%, 51%, and 42% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of hives, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. A dose-response relationship was established. At week 12, a total of 30%, 44%, and 40% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of symptoms, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. In this small and short trial, no safety concerns regarding ligelizumab or omalizumab emerged.
CONCLUSIONS
A higher percentage of patients had complete control of symptoms of chronic spontaneous urticaria with ligelizumab therapy of 72 mg or 240 mg than with omalizumab or placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477332.).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Chronic Disease; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Male; Middle Aged; Omalizumab; Patient Acuity; Remission Induction; Urticaria; Young Adult
PubMed: 31577874
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1900408 -
Allergology International : Official... Jan 2023Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized... (Review)
Review
Biologics have been a key component of severe asthma treatment, and there are currently biologics available that target IgE, IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and TSLP. Randomized controlled trials have established clinical evidence, but a significant portion of patients with severe asthma in real-life settings would have been excluded from those trials. Therefore, real-world research is necessary, and there is a growing body of information about the long-term efficacy and safety of biologics. Multiple clinical phenotypes of severe asthma exist, and it is crucial to choose patients based on their phenotypes. Blood eosinophil count is an important biomarker for anti-IL-5 therapies, and FeNO and eosinophil counts serve as prediction markers for dupilumab. Reliable markers for predicting response, however, have not yet been fully established for omalizumab. Identification of clinical or biological prediction factors is crucial for the path toward clinical remission because the current treatment goal includes clinical remission, which is defined as a realistic goal for remission off treatment. Additionally, since there are now multiple biologic options and overlaps in eligibility for biologics in clinical practice, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of switching the biologics is crucial. Investigations into the clinical trajectory following the cessation of biologics are another important issue. Recent research on omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab's real-world effectiveness, the prediction factor for the efficacy, and the impact of switching or discontinuation will be reviewed and discussed in this review.
Topics: Humans; Omalizumab; Asthma; Eosinophils; Interleukin-5; Interleukin-13; Biological Products; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36543689
DOI: 10.1016/j.alit.2022.11.008 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aug 2020Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined as the spontaneous development of itchy hives and/or angioedema due to known or unknown causes that last for at least... (Review)
Review
Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined as the spontaneous development of itchy hives and/or angioedema due to known or unknown causes that last for at least 6 weeks. At any given time, CSU is believed to affect 0.5-1% of the global population. Omalizumab (a recombinant, humanized anti-immunoglobulin-E antibody) is the only approved treatment for antihistamine refractory CSU. However, ~ 30% of patients remain symptomatic at licensed doses of omalizumab 150 mg and 300 mg, even after a treatment period of over 6 months. In the recent years, there have been several studies on updosing of the drug, suggesting that the individualized approach for urticaria treatment with omalizumab is useful. In this article, we provide an overview of these studies and the real-world data on omalizumab updosing as it became necessary to obtain complete CSU symptom control in a proportion of patients. Published observational studies (from June 2003 to October 2019) on the updosing of omalizumab in CSU were identified using PubMed and Ovid databases. Reports mainly show that updosing/dose adjustment evaluated with the assessment of disease activity (Urticaria Activity Score) and control (Urticaria Control Test) achieves better clinical response to omalizumab with a good safety profile in a pool of patients with CSU. These real-world data will provide an overview of updosing of omalizumab in CSU and aid in setting informed clinical practice treatment expectations.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Urticaria; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Omalizumab; Precision Medicine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32418171
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-020-08794-6 -
JAMA Dermatology Jan 2019Omalizumab is indicated for the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) (also known as chronic spontaneous urticaria) in adolescents and adults with persistent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Omalizumab is indicated for the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) (also known as chronic spontaneous urticaria) in adolescents and adults with persistent hives not controlled with antihistamines. The effectiveness of omalizumab in the real-world management of CIU is largely unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To quantitatively synthesize what is known about the benefits and harms of omalizumab in the real-world clinical management of CIU regarding urticaria activity, treatment response, and adverse events.
DATA SOURCES
Published observational studies (January 1, 2006, to January 1, 2018) and scientific abstracts on the effectiveness of omalizumab in CIU were identified using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane search engines; references were searched to identify additional studies.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were observational in design and included at least 1 outcome in common with other studies and at a concurrent time point of exposure to omalizumab. A total of 67 articles (35.2% of those screened) were included in the analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed; independent selection and data extraction were completed by 2 observers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Main outcomes were change in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7; range, 0-42), change in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS; range 0-6) (higher score indicating worse outcome in both scales), complete and partial response rates (percentages), and adverse event rate (percentage).
RESULTS
Omalizumab therapy was associated with an improvement in UAS7 scores (-25.6 points, 95% CI, -28.2 to -23.0; P < .001; 15 studies, 294 patients), an improvement in UAS scores (-4.7 points, 95% CI, -5.0 to -4.4, P < .001; 10 studies, 1158 patients), an average complete response rate of 72.2% (95% CI, 66.1%-78.3%; P < .001; 45 studies, 1158 patients) with an additional average partial response rate of 17.8% (95% CI, 11.7%-23.9%; P < .001; 37 studies, 908 patients), and an average adverse event rate of 4.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-7.0%; P < .001; any level of severity, 47 studies, 1314 patients).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Benefits and safety of omalizumab in the real-world treatment of CIU meet or exceed results gleaned from clinical trials. These real-world data on omalizumab in CIU may help inform both clinical treatment expectations and policy decision making.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Omalizumab; Remission Induction; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria
PubMed: 30427977
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.3447 -
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