Omalizumab In Patients Research Articles

Omalizumab improves sinonasal outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps regardless of allergic status

BackgroundPatients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often have atopic comorbidities, including elevated IgE levels and comorbid asthma. Omalizumab, an IgE monoclonal antibody, is an effective treatment for CRSwNP, but the impact of allergy or asthma status on response to omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP has not been well studied. ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of allergy and asthma status on omalizumab treatment in patients with CRSwNP, this posthoc exploratory analysis assessed sinonasal outcomes from subgroups of patients included in POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the open-label extension (OLE) trials. MethodsPatients (N = 249) were grouped by the presence/absence of comorbid allergy (≥ 1 physician-reported allergic rhinitis, allergic sinusitis, food allergy, or atopic dermatitis), presence/absence of comorbid asthma, baseline serum total IgE (≥ 150 or <150 IU/mL), and baseline blood eosinophil levels (>300 or ≤ 300 cells/µL). Sinonasal outcomes were the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22. ResultsDuring POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the OLE, omalizumab treatment improved the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22 score in patients with/without physician-reported allergic comorbidities, with/without asthma, with higher/lower total IgE levels, and with higher/lower blood eosinophil counts. In the OLE, the pattern of improvement was similar in patients who continued or switched to omalizumab. ConclusionIn patients with CRSwNP, omalizumab improved sinonasal outcomes independent of allergic status, which suggests that a wide range of patients with different endotypes and phenotypes of CRSwNP may benefit from omalizumab treatment. Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03280550, NCT03280537, NCT03478930.

Economic evaluation and budgetary burden of mepolizumab in severe refractory eosinophilic asthma

ObjectiveMepolizumab is indicated as an additional treatment of severe refractory eosinophilic asthma. The observed differences in population subgroups according to plasma eosinophil count, the existence of patients with high levels of immunoglobulin E who are candidates of omalizumab and mepolizumab, as well as mepolizumab's economic impact, lead to make efficient economic studies for clinical decision making. The aim was to analyze mepolizumab's cost-efficacy and budget impact. MethodCost comparison and the use of mepolizumab's budgetary impact was performed, from the Spanish National Health System's perspective. Among the assessed alternatives, inhaled systemic corticosteroids, plus long acting beta agonist (β2) and/or oral systemic corticosteroids in patients with non immunoglobulin E-mediated severe allergic asthma, and said treatment along with omalizumab in patients with immunoglobulin E mediated eosinophilic allergic asthma were included. Its efficacy was evaluated through avoided clinically relevant exacerbations. The direct costs associated with exacerbation were assessed. ResultsMepolizumab's long run average incremental cost regarding omalizumab's is 797 euros per patient a year. Considering omalizumab's alternative discounted price, including mepolizumab for patients with immunoglobulin E mediated eosinophilic allergic asthma would increase public spending from 2.3 to 4.6 million euros. Given omalizumab's notified price, the gradual introduction of mepolizumab in the Spanish National Health System would save 3.6 million euros in three years. For non immunoglobulin E-mediated severe asthma patients, the avoided cost/exacerbation by introducing mepolizumab is 15,085 euros, assuming a gradual market penetration of mepolizumab. In patients with ≥ 500 eosinophils/µL, this cost decreases to 7,767 euros per avoided exacerbation with a budgetary impact of 183.2 million euros in three years with a progressive penetration of mepolizumab. ConclusionsThe cost comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab in immunoglobulin E mediated eosinophilic asthma patients suggests a use of the lower cost drug, promoting price competition. Additionally, prioritizing its use among non immunoglobulin E-mediated severe refractory eosinophilic asthma patients and ≥ 500 eosinophils/µL plasma level patients, would improve its efficiency as well as reducing its budgetary impact.

Effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with or without allergic rhinitis: a retrospective chart review

BackgroundOmalizumab is a valuable alternative treatment for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). The effectiveness and safety of this medication have not been confirmed. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab for ABPA.MethodsThis study involved a retrospective chart review. The main indicators used were asthma control test (ACT) scores, lung function parameters, doses of corticosteroids, acute exacerbation, hospitalization rates, total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and blood eosinophil counts. Related adverse events were also reviewed to evaluate the safety of omalizumab.ResultsFourteen patients with ABPA were included, of whom 10 (71%) concurrently had allergic rhinitis (AR). There were improvements in the mean percentages of the forced vital capacity, percentages of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and ACT score after omalizumab administration (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.01, respectively). After the initiation of omalizumab administration, the median corticosteroid dose, acute exacerbation rate, hospitalization rate, and mean blood eosinophil count decreased when compared with the baseline values (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.05, respectively). A reduction in the total serum IgE level was observed in patients with ABPA without AR compared with that in patients with AR (p < 0.05). One patient reported a concurrent skin rash, which spontaneously resolved without medication.ConclusionIt is safe and effective to prescribe omalizumab to patients with ABPA, irrespective of whether they have AR. Dose adjustment of omalizumab is safe after disease control. The total serum IgE level might be a predictor of the effectiveness of omalizumab in patients without AR.

Positive basophil histamine release assay predicts insufficient response to standard-dosed omalizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Positive basophil histamine release assay predicts insufficient response to standard-dosed omalizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Real-Life Data on the Use of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Asthma and Chronic Urticaria and Mepolizumab in Patients with Severe Asthma: A Retrospective Study

This study aimed to assess the real-life effectiveness of omalizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), explicitly examining changes in IgE levels and eosinophil counts during treatment. This retrospective study involved patients with severe asthma or CSU treated with biologic agents, including omalizumab and mepolizumab. The primary outcome measures were serum IgE levels, eosinophil counts, urticaria activity scores (UAS), and asthma control test scores (ACT). We studied 61 patients with severe asthma or chronic urticaria treated with biological agents. Patients with asthma exhibited a significant reduction in the median annual attack rate from 4 to 0 with omalizumab (p&amp;lt;0.001) and from 6 to 1 with mepolizumab (p&amp;lt;0.001). Eosinophil counts, and ACT scores significantly decreased with mepolizumab (p&amp;lt;0.001). Six patients who transitioned from omalizumab to mepolizumab did not experience severe asthma attacks in the first six months following the treatment switch. Patients with CSU showed a significant response to omalizumab (p&amp;lt;0.001). We observed significant improvements in various markers, including total IgE levels, eosinophil counts, UAS, and ACT scores, indicating that these treatments can effectively manage the symptoms of both conditions. These findings underscore the potential benefits of using these treatments as effective therapeutic options.

Association Between Serum Total IgE Levels and Clinical Response to Omalizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Omalizumab is the only biological agent approved for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but no biomarker is well established for predicting clinical response to omalizumab. We aimed to determine the association between baseline total serum IgE levels and the effects of omalizumab in patients with CSU. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant studies from inception to August 23, 2022. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022355592). No language restrictions were applied. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Ten interventional studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial, were included in the final meta-analysis, and a total of 866 patients with CSU were included. A pooled analysis showed significantly higher serum total IgE levels in complete responders (CRs) than in nonresponders (NRs) (mean difference [MD]: 56.509 IU/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.230-88.789) and in partial responders (PRs) than in NRs (MD: 62.688 IU/mL; 95% CI: 32.949-92.427), but no significant difference was detected between CRs and PRs. The mean total IgE levels for CRs, PRs, and NRs were 163.154, 179.926, and 51.535 IU/mL, respectively. Further, the serum total IgE levels in early CRs were significantly higher compared with late CRs (MD: 55.194 IU/mL; 95% CI: 13.402-96.986). The sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method validated the robustness of all findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide convincing evidence that pretreatment total serum IgE levels in patients with CSU are associated with clinical responses to omalizumab.

Biomarkers for Monitoring Treatment Response of Omalizumab in Patients with Chronic Urticaria.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a debilitating skin disease affecting around 1% of the population. CU can be subdivided into chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU). Different pathophysiological mechanisms have been proposed to play a role in the development of CU, and these are also being investigated as potential biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of the disease. As of now the only assessment tools available for treatment response are patient reported outcomes (PROs). Although these tools are both validated and widely used, they leave a desire for more objective measurements. A biomarker is a broad subcategory of observations that can be used as an accurate, reproducible, and objective indicator of clinically relevant outcomes. This could be normal biological or pathogenic processes, or a response to an intervention or exposure, e.g., treatment response. Herein we provide an overview of biomarkers for CU, with a focus on prognostic biomarkers for treatment response to omalizumab, thereby potentially aiding physicians in personalizing treatments.

PD04 Real-life experience of Scottish patients with idiopathic solar urticaria

Abstract We conducted a retrospective study to characterize our most recent cohort of patients with idiopathic solar urticaria (SU), to compare with our previous findings (Beattie PE, Dawe RS, Ibbotson SH, Ferguson J. Characteristics and prognosis of idiopathic solar urticaria: a cohort of 87 cases. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1149–54). We analysed data derived from our in-house database and paper and electronic records of patients with SU seen through the Scottish Photobiology Service between 2003 and 2022. Eighty-four patients with SU were seen in this period, 57 (68%) women and 27 (32%) men. Twenty-nine (35%) had a single consultation/phototesting and 55 (65%) had follow-up assessments. The average age of onset was 37 years, with the average age of diagnosis being 41 years, with delays from symptom onset to diagnosis ranging from 6 months to 24 years. Importantly, 20 (24%) patients self-reported systemic symptoms, most commonly fatigue, dizziness and nausea. Of 61 patients using antihistamines before diagnosis, 31 (51%) reported benefit. Of patients who tried sunscreens, 31 of 65 (48%) reported benefit. On monochromator phototesting, sensitivity predominantly involved the ultraviolet (UV)A waveband (335–400 + 27 nm in 55%), extending into the visible spectrum (&amp;gt; 430 + 27 nm) in 44% and UVB waveband (305 + 5 nm) in 1%, consistent with previous reports of predominant UVA/visible light dependency in SU. On review of follow-up data, we analysed the fold benefit in minimal urticaria dose (MUD) from testing on H1 antihistamines alone, H1 and H2 antihistamines combined and the addition of montelukast. Most (65%) responded with a more than twofold improvement in MUD after a single dose of H1 antihistamine, with only 35% not responding. Increasing the dose of H1 antihistamine did not provide notable additional benefit. There was a suggestion of improved responses by the addition of an H2 antagonist (in 76% vs. 66% with H1 antagonist alone), but this was not statistically significant (P &amp;gt; 0.05). No additional improvement in threshold sensitivity (MUD) was observed by the addition of montelukast. Small numbers of patients used other treatments such as photo(chemo)therapies and systemic immunosuppressants, and these were found to be of limited benefit. Since 2011, we have used omalizumab for patients with treatment-resistant SU. Of the current cohort, 13 received omalizumab, with 62% reporting a good clinical response and a further 15% a partial clinical response. Phototesting in these patients showed complete abolition of photosensitivity or excellent responses (more than fivefold increase in MUD) in 73%, demonstrating the efficacy of omalizumab in recalcitrant SU. Given the systemic features reported by some patients with SU, this supports a management approach, which includes systemic immunomodulation as a potentially effective option.

Results of therapy of chronic urticaria in patients with IgE-dependent and IgE-independent disease profile

The main mechanism for the occurrence of urticaria is the degranulation of mast cells. It has been proven that, regardless of the activation pathway, clinical manifestations will not differ. According to the literature, up to half of cases of chronic spontaneous urticaria are autoimmune in nature, can be combined with autoimmune thyroid disease, SLE, etc., and have a more severe course.In therapy, antihistamines are traditionally used. However, some patients do not respond to the treatment, even with a multiple increase in doses. In the treatment of urticaria resistant to traditional antihistamines, the use of Omalizumab is recommended. The purpose of the study: to determine the profile of patients with chronic urticaria, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment with Omalizumab in patients with IgE- dependent and IgE-independent chronic urticaria.Eight-one patients with chronic urticaria (60 adults, 21 children) were examined. Patients before the start of therapy had a long history of CU: from 1 to 20 years. Patients before the start of therapy were treated with antihistamines, but no control was obtained. An increase in the level of serum IgE was detected in 51.7% of cases in adults and 42% in children. Concomitant sensitization was determined in 48.3% of adults and 76.2% of children. In children, food, epidermal and pollen sensitization was the most common. Pollen and epidermal sensitization were more common in adults. The level of eosinophilia in the group with IgE-dependent was more pronounced than in other group (p = 0.0097). After 6 months, the group with IgE-dependent showed an improvement in the symptom score (UCT) from 3.1 CI (1.5-4.6) to 12.2 CI (10.8-13.7), (p = 0.0001). In other group, symptoms improved from 0.63 CI (0.36-1.6) to 8.1 CI (5-11.2) after 6 months (no control). After 6 months of genetically engineered biological therapy (GIBT), complete control over the symptoms of CU in group 1 was obtained in 66.7% of patients, partial — in 33.7%. In the second group, in 33.3% of cases, positive treatment results could not be achieved. Thus, genetically engineered biological therapy with Omalizumab increases the control over the course of CU. Treatment outcomes are higher in patients with an IgE-dependent disease profile.

Type I and Type IIb Autoimmunity in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Patients: Evaluating the Clinical Response to Omalizumab

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical response to omalizumab in patients with Type 1 and Type IIb autoimmunity suffering from chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and to compare the difference in laboratory data. A retrospective study was conducted from September 2019 to December 2022 in the Center of Allergy and Immunology in Tbilisi, Georgia, involving 39 patients (95% females, 5% males, average age 35.82 years). Total IgE and ANA antibodies were taken as markers of autoimmunity. The study included patients who still had high disease activity despite using a fourfold dose of non-sedating antihistamines. Patients were prescribed omalizumab according to international guidelines with an interval of 4 weeks for at least 3 months. Disease activity was determined using the urticaria activity score (UAS7), and patients were divided into three groups according to CSU activity: low, moderate, and high disease activity. Response to omalizumab was assessed as non-responders, partial responders, and complete responders. The results showed that Type I autoimmunity had a higher percentage of complete responders than Type IIb (55.5% vs. 18.3%). Non-responder rates were higher in Type IIb than in Type I (72.7% vs. 18.5%). The median total IgE levels were significantly higher in Type I than in Type IIb (138 vs. 23.95 kU/I). The median duration of the disease was significantly shorter in Type I than in Type IIb (9 vs. 27 months). No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding age, angioedema, CRP levels, H. pylori infection rates, anti-TPO IgG levels, eosinopenia, and basopenia. In conclusion, this study suggests that the clinical response to omalizumab differs depending on the type of autoimmunity. Type I autoimmunity patients had a better response to omalizumab than Type IIb. The median duration of the disease was significantly shorter in Type I than in Type IIb. Further studies are needed to evaluate the mechanism underlying the difference in response to omalizumab and the use of different treatment options for patients with different types of autoimmunity.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from four major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methodsBetween February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe asthma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L), and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC vs. OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.ResultsPer-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed the base-case results.ConclusionWhereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard of care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

Meaningful changes for efficacy outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

ObjectiveNasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score (NCS) are commonly used clinical trial endpoints to determine improvements in response to treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, limited information is available on within-patient meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) and between-group minimal important differences (MIDs) for NPS and NCS, which would aid interpretation of results. MethodsData from phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2) were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs for both NPS and NCS using anchor-based methods. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and SNOT-22 Sino-Nasal Symptoms Subscale (SNSS) scores were used as anchors (≥0.35 correlation with NPS and NCS). Within- and between-group differences in NPS and NCS change scores were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs, respectively. Identified MCTs were used in unblinded responder analyses to compare the proportions of patients per treatment group achieving a meaningful improvement. ResultsMCTs and MIDs were estimated at −1.0 and −0.5 for NPS and −0.50 and −0.35 for NCS, respectively, and were consistent across studies. Overall, 57.0% of patients achieved the MCT in NPS with omalizumab vs 29.9% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Similarly, 58.9% of patients achieved the MCT in NCS with omalizumab vs 30.7% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Group differences in mean change were statistically significant and exceeded the estimated MIDs. ConclusionsMeaningful change estimates for NPS and NCS could be used to assess response to treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Trial registration: POLYP1: clinicaltrails.gov NCT03280550; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550). POLYP2 (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03280537; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537).

461 Total serum IgE levels as a predictor for clinical response to omalizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

461 Total serum IgE levels as a predictor for clinical response to omalizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of two-year anti-IgE therapy in patients with severe allergic bronchial asthma in Sverdlovsk region

Introduction. The study of omalizumab efficacy in patients with severe bronchial asthma (SA) in randomized clinical trials is limited to 52 weeks. In real clinical practice, patients can receive the drug for much longer.Aim. Evaluate the one-year and two-year efficacy of omalizumab in patients with SA in Sverdlovsk region.Material and methods. The study included patients (n = 54) with allergic and mixed SA from the registry of Sverdlovsk region. Omalizumab efficacy was assessed over 12 and 24 months of therapy by dynamics of asthma exacerbations frequency, the use of health care resources, the need for short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) and systemic glucocorticosteroids (SGCS), the level of asthma control according to ACT, and the quality of life according to AQLQ, FEV1 levels and peripheral blood eosinophils.Results. During 12 months of omalizumab therapy, the reduction in asthma exacerbation rate was 63.7% (from 2.01 ± 1.51 per patient per year to 0.73 ± 1.03) (p &lt; 0.001), which was accompanied by a decrease in emergency calls and hospitalizations rates by 92.4 and 84.1%, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). Improved asthma control (by ACT) from 9 (Q1-Q3: 7–13) to 20 points (Q1-Q3: 16–23); the proportion of patients with uncontrolled SA decreased from 97.4 to 48.7% (p &lt; 0.001). The need for SABA decreased to 92.9% (p &lt; 0.001). The proportion of patients on SGCS decreased from 60.5% to 15.8% (p &lt; 0.001). The quality of life (AQLQ) significantly improved, FEV1 increased (p &lt; 0.001), the number of eosinophils in peripheral blood decreased (p = 0.015). By the end of the second year of therapy, the trend of improvement in indicators of efficacy continued.Conclusions. During 1 year of therapy with omalizumab, patients with allergic SA experienced a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations and use of health care resources, improved quality of life and asthma control, reduced need for SABA and SGCS, and improved respiratory function. In patients treated with omalizumab for 2 years, there was a further improvement or stabilization of efficacy indicators.

Clinical efficacy observation of omalizumab on patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma for one year

To observe the symptom control, pulmonary function changes and safety of use of omalizumab in patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma for 1 year. A small sample self-controlled study before and after treatment was conducted to retrospective analysis involved 17 patients with moderate to severe asthma who received omalizumab therapy for 12 months in Peking University People's Hospital and Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January 2020 to December 2021. The clinical symptoms and pulmonary function changes were compared before treatment, after 6 months and 12 months of treatment, and the clinical data such as the use of other drugs and adverse reactions were observed. Statistical data are collected using the median method, and non-parametric paired Wilcoxon analysis was used for pairwise comparison. Before treatment with omalizumab, the patients' FeNO value was 79(58, 121) ppb, and the total serum IgE was 228(150.5, 345.5) IU/ml. After 6 months of omalizumab therapy, the percent predicted value of the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%) before inhaled bronchodilator increased from 86.70(82.65, 91.35)% to 90.90(87.70, 95.85)% (Z=-3.626, P<0.001). The FEV1%pred after inhaled bronchodilator increased from 92.60(85.75, 96.90)% to 94.30(89.95, 98.15)% (Z=-2.178, P=0.029). The absolute value of improvement in FEV1 decreased from 150(95, 210)ml to 50(20, 125) ml (Z=-2.796, P=0.005), and the improvement rate decreased from 6.60(3.80, 7.85)% to 1.90(0.75, 4.85)% (Z=-2.922, P=0.003). After 12 months of treatment, the FEV1%pred before inhaled bronchodilator further increased to 92.90 (91.60, 98.15)% (Z=-3.575, -2.818, and P<0.001, 0.005 compared with before treatment and 6 months after treatment, respectively). The FEV1%pred after inhaled bronchodilator increased to 96.80 (91.90, 101.25)% (Z=-3.622, -1.638, and P<0.001, 0.008 compared with before treatment and after 6 months of treatment, respectively). The absolute value of improvement in FEV1 was 70 (35, 120) ml (P=0.004, 0.842 before treatment and 6 months after treatment, respectively), and the improvement rate was 3.0(1.0, 5.0)% (Z=-2.960, -0.166, and P=0.003, 0.868, compared with before treatment and after 6 months of treatment, respectively). After 12 months of treatment, ACT increased from 13 (10.5, 18) before treatment to 24 (23, 25) (Z=-3.626,P<0.001). Only 1 patient experienced an injection site skin reaction during treatment. Therefore, after 6 months and 12 months of treatment with omalizumab, the patient's lung function improved and symptoms were relieved, which could effectively prevent the acute exacerbation of asthma. Omalizumab treatment is safe and well tolerated, and no effect on blood pressure and blood glucose was observed.

Impact of Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma and Possible Predictive Biomarkers of Response: A Real-Life Study

Most patients with asthma can control their symptoms with a basic standard of medical care and with maintenance and rescue medication. However, between 5% and 10% of asthmatics worldwide do not achieve control of their symptoms and have recurrent exacerbations and respiratory difficulties. The objective of the study was the real-life evaluation of the clinical improvement of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with omalizumab, together with the search for biomarkers associated with the response. An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted that included patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma being treated with omalizumab. Three types of response were evaluated: lower use of oral corticosteroids, improvement in lung function, and reduction in exacerbations. A total of 110 patients under treatment with omalizumab were included, with a mean age of 48 ± 16 years. After 12 months had elapsed, significant reductions were found in the number of exacerbations, use of oral cortico-steroids and doses of inhaled corticosteroids (p < 0.001). Lung function and asthma control improved significantly (p < 0.001; p = 0.004) and eosinophil levels were significantly reduced (p = 0.004). Low scores in the Asthma Control Test were associated with the oral corticosteroid-saving effect; lower previous FEV1 levels and absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were related to improvement in lung function, and prior FEV1 values higher than 80% and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with a reduction in exacerbations. The results of this study confirm the clinical benefit obtained after the introduction of omalizumab and the possible predictive biomarkers of response to the treatment.

Efficacy and predictors of rapid response to omalizumab therapy in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: The availability of anti-IgE therapy for allergic rhinitis has actualized the need to develop variants of this treatment according to predictors of rapid response and techniques of treatment initiation.&#x0D; AIM: To study the efficacy and predictors of response to omalizumab in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.&#x0D; MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with moderate or severe seasonal allergic rhinitis in which traditional treatment for at least 3 months was not effective in the previous pollen season or in the current season were included. The decision to prescribe omalizumab was made based on the visual analog scale (VAS) in the previous or current season. The dosage and frequency of administration (every 2 or 4 weeks) were determined according to the table of values provided in the instructions. The patients were observed for 2 months. At follow-up visits (1 and 2 months later), allergic rhinitis symptom control was assessed using VAS and total nasal symptoms score (TNSS). Therapy was considered effective when the VAS remained 30 or decreased 30 after 4 and 8 weeks from the start of therapy, depending on the initiation period.&#x0D; RESULTS: The study enrolled 30 patients with allergic rhinitis history of 14 years, sensitization to 2 groups of allergens in 19 (63.3%) cases and bronchial asthma in 18 (60%). Omalizumab was initiated before the pollen season in 6 (20%) patients and during the season in 24 (80%) patients. After 4 weeks, allergic rhinitis manifestations were controlled in 23 (77%) patients, and by week 8, 100% of the patients with allergic rhinitis had fully responded to therapy. By 4 weeks of follow-up, the severity of allergic rhinitis symptoms on the VAS and TNSS scales decreased by 2.7 and 4.7 times, respectively. The proportion of patients with a slow response by week 4 of therapy was 23%. Body mass index (lower in the slow response group) and history of bronchial asthma (2.6 times longer in the slow responders) were associated with the achievement of this outcome. No adverse events were recorded.&#x0D; CONCLUSIONS: In patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, omalizumab allows the control of disease manifestations after 4 weeks of therapy with its maintenance in the follow-up. Predictors of rapid response have been revealed; however, their clinical significance requires further study.

Omalizumab in Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with ABPA. 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. 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 FEV1 % predicted by 11.9% (95% CI, 8.2-15.6; P < .01) and asthma control, and was well-tolerated. 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.

RWD92 Persistence and Patterns of Exposure to Omalizumab in Patients With Asthma in France Between 2009 and 2019 (SOLAIR Study)

RWD92 Persistence and Patterns of Exposure to Omalizumab in Patients With Asthma in France Between 2009 and 2019 (SOLAIR Study)

Is Omalizumab Related to Ear and Labyrinth Disorders? A Disproportionality Analysis Based on a Global Pharmacovigilance Database.

Introduction: Asthma is a chronic disease, characterized by reversible airway obstruction, hypersensitivity reactions, and inflammation. Oral corticosteroids are an important treatment option for patients with severe or steroid-resistant asthma. Biologics for asthma are recommended in patients with severe asthma, owing to their steroid-sparing effect as well as their ability to reduce the severity and aggravation of uncontrolled asthma. Most clinical trials of omalizumab in patients with asthma have suggested its tolerability and safety. However, some studies reported eosinophilic comorbidities in the ear, nose, and throat during omalizumab treatment, particularly eosinophilic otitis media. This study examined the relationship between ear disorders and omalizumab compared with that of other biologics for asthma using a large real-world database. Materials and Methods: Individual case safety reports from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre Vigibase of biologics for asthma (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) up to 29 December 2019, were used. A disproportionality analysis was performed using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR), and information components (IC). A hierarchy analysis used the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Terminology. A tree map was generated using R studio version 4.2. Results: In 32,618 omalizumab reports, 714 adverse events (AEs) were detected as signals. Among the 714 signals, seventeen AEs were detected as signals of omalizumab-related ear and labyrinth disorders in 394 reports. Only three AEs (ear pain, ear disorder, and ear discomfort) were detected from mepolizumab. No signal was detected from reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab. Conclusions: Careful monitoring of ear disorders is recommended when omalizumab treatment is started, with decreased oral corticosteroid use in patients with severe asthma. Further studies are necessary to confirm the omalizumab-related signals.