Targeted Therapy for Severe Asthma: Switching Biological agents in Real Clinical Practice — Causes and Consequences
- Authors: Naumova V.V.1, Beltyukov E.K.1, Kiseleva D.V.1, Bykova G.A.1, Smolenskaya O.G.1, Shtanova A.A.1, Stepina D.А.1
-
Affiliations:
- Ural State Medical University
- Issue: Vol 20, No 4 (2023)
- Pages: 439-454
- Section: Original studies
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/raj/article/view/253263
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.36691/RJA15993
- ID: 253263
Cite item
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The complexity of choosing a genetically engineered biological drug for the treatment of severe bronchial asthma is due to the intersection of disease endotypes and phenotypes. Mistakes in biological choice lead to the discontinuation and/or switching of the drug because of insufficient effectiveness of therapy.
AIM: To determine the reasons for stopping targeted therapy and biological switching effectiveness in patients with severe bronchial asthma in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with severe bronchial asthma (n=116) from the Sverdlovsk region register were divided into three groups: (1) continuous, (2) stoppers, and (3) switchers. Predictors of biological withdrawal and switching, reasons for the first biological stopping, switching schemes, therapy effectiveness after switching according to the asthma control test (ACT), asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ), 22-item sinonasal outcome test [SNOT-22], forced expiratory volume in the first second, need for systemic glucocorticosteroids, and achievement of strong asthma control were determined.
RESULTS: Of the 116 patients in the registry, 17.2% were stoppers and 12.1% were switchers. Stoppers suffered from chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps less often and had an earlier asthma onset. Switchers had higher blood eosinophil levels. Therapy was canceled for personal reasons in 45% of the patients. The ineffectiveness of therapy in severe bronchial asthma and/or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps was the main reason for switching (92.8%) from omalizumab and benralizumab. The drug of choice for switching was dupilumab. Indicators improved, namely, ACT by 86.4%, AQLQ by 52.5%, SNOT-22 by 48%, and forced expiratory volume in the first second by 21.2%), and the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids decreased to 0 in 12 months after switching. Strong control was achieved in 62.5% of the patients when excluding the forced expiratory volume in the first second, and 50% of patients when including the forced expiratory volume in the first second.
CONCLUSION: Careful selection of targeted therapy patients minimizes the failures of the starting drug to 12.1%. Switching the starting genetically engineered biological drug, aimed only at blocking eosinophils or only at blocking IgE, because of its inefficiency, to a drug with a dual mechanism of action leads to a significant improvement in ACT, AQLQ, SNOT-22, forced expiratory volume in the first second, and absence of systemic glucocorticosteroids.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Veronika V. Naumova
Ural State Medical University
Email: nika.naumova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3028-2657
SPIN-code: 8210-6478
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, EkaterinburgEvgeny K. Beltyukov
Ural State Medical University
Email: asthma@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2485-2243
SPIN-code: 6987-1057
ResearcherId: AAI-1608-2020
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation, EkaterinburgDarina V. Kiseleva
Ural State Medical University
Email: darinakiseljova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7847-5415
SPIN-code: 9446-7866
Russian Federation, Ekaterinburg
Galina A. Bykova
Ural State Medical University
Email: Center-ao@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0823-4605
SPIN-code: 2918-8690
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, EkaterinburgOlga G. Smolenskaya
Ural State Medical University
Email: o.smolenskaya@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0705-6651
SPIN-code: 5443-9382
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor
Russian Federation, EkaterinburgAlexandra A. Shtanova
Ural State Medical University
Email: alekshtanova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8104-0017
SPIN-code: 1086-9994
Russian Federation, Ekaterinburg
Daria А. Stepina
Ural State Medical University
Author for correspondence.
Email: d.stepina37@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5365-7792
SPIN-code: 6198-1141
Russian Federation, Ekaterinburg
References
- Agache I, Akdis CA, Akdis M, et al. EAACI biologicals guidelines-recommendations for severe asthma. Allergy. 2021;76(1):14–44. doi: 10.1111/all.14425
- Chapman KR, Albers FC, Chipps B, et al. The clinical benefit of mepolizumab replacing omalizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma. Allergy. 2019;74(9):1716–1726. doi: 10.1111/all.13850
- Bakakos A, Rovina N, Loukides S, Bakakos P. Biologics in severe asthma: Outcomes in clinical trials-similarities and differences. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2022;22(7):855–870. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2022.2091409
- Menzies-Gow AN, McBrien C, Unni B, et al. Real world biologic use and switch patterns in severe asthma: Data from the international severe asthma registry and the US CHRONICLE study. J Asthma Allergy. 2022;15:63–78. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S328653
- Papaioannou AI, Fouka E, Papakosta D, et al. Switching between biologics in severe asthma patients. When the first choice is not proven to be the best. Clin Exp Allergy. 2021;51(2):221–227. doi: 10.1111/cea.13809
- Yilmaz İ, Paçacı Çetin G, Arslan B, et al. Biological therapy management from the initial selection of biologics to switching between biologics in severe asthma. Tuberk Toraks. 2023;71(1):75–93. doi: 10.5578/tt.20239910
- Pham DD, Lee JH, Kwon HS, et al. Prospective direct comparison of biological treatments on severe eosinophilic asthma: Findings from the PRISM study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023;1081-1206(23):01402–01403. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2023.11.005
- Pavord ID, Hanania NA, Corren J. Controversies in allergy: Choosing a biologic for patients with severe asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022;10(2):410–419. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.12.014
- Nagase H, Suzukawa M, Oishi K, Matsunaga K. Biologics for severe asthma: The real-world evidence, effectiveness of switching, and prediction factors for the efficacy. Allergol Int. 2023;72(1):11–23. doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2022.11.008
- Chung KF, Wenzel SE, Brozek JL, et al. International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(2):343–373. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00202013
- Global Initiative for Asthma [Internet]. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. National Institutes of Health. Diagnosis and Management of Difficult-to-Treat and Severe Asthma in Adolescent and Adult Patients. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Revised; 2019. Available from: http://www.ginasthma.org. Accessed: 09.02.2023.
- Buhl R, Humbert M, Bjermer L, et al. Severe eosinophilic asthma: A roadmap to consensus. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(5):1700634. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00634-2017
- Global Initiative for Asthma [Internet]. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. National Institutes of Health. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Revised; 2022. Available from: http://www.ginasthma.org. Accessed: 09.02.2023.
- Pepper AN, Hanania NA, Humbert M, Casale TB. How to assess effectiveness of biologics for asthma and what steps to take when there is not benefit. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(3):1081–1088. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.10.048
- Numata T, Araya J, Miyagawa H, et al. Effectiveness of switching biologics for severe asthma patients in Japan: A single-center retrospective study. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;(14):609–618. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S311975
- Matsumoto-Sasaki M, Simizu K, Suzuki M, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients and factors associated with switching biologics in asthma. J Asthma Allergy. 2022;(15):187–195. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S348513
- Ito A, Miyoshi S, Toyota H, et al. The overlapping eligibility for biologics in patients with severe asthma and phenotypes. Arerugi. 2022;71(3):210–220. doi: 10.15036/arerugi.71.210
- Albers FC, Müllerová H, Gunsoy NB, et al. Biologic treatment eligibility for real-world patients with severe asthma: The IDEAL study. J Asthma. 2018;55(2):152–160. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2017.1322611
- Farhood Z, Schlosser RJ, Pearse ME, et al. Twenty-two-item sino-nasal outcome test in a control population: A cross-sectional study and systematic review. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(3):271–277. doi: 10.1002/alr.21668
- Kim J, Naclerio R. Therapeutic potential of dupilumab in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Evidence to date. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2020;(16):31–37. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S210648
- Menzies-Gow A, Bafadhel M, Busse WW, et al. An expert consensus framework for asthma remission as a treatment goal. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(3):757–765. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.12.006
- Abbas F, Georas S, Cai X, Khurana S. Asthma biologics: Real-world effectiveness, impact of switching biologics, and predictors of response. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021;127(6):655–660. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2021.08.416