Ali Doroudchi1, Mohini Pathria2, Brian D Modena3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Division of Allergy, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado. 3. Division of Allergy, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado. Electronic address: ModenaB@njhealth.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Five biologic therapies have FDA-approved indications for difficult-to-control asthma. The clinical trials that proved the efficacy and safety of these biologics were often similar in their inclusion criteria, study designs, and endpoints. Many of these trials have been reanalyzed post hoc to identify subsets of subjects considered to be enhanced responders. As a result, keeping up with the literature and deciding on the most appropriate biologic for our patients has become increasingly difficult. This review summarizes and compares trial designs, patient cohorts, and study results of the major trials involving these therapies. DATA SOURCES: Included are basic science articles, online Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applications, and all the published reports of phase II and phase III clinical trials for FDA-approved asthma biologics. STUDY SELECTIONS: Included are the major phase II and phase III clinical trials of 5 asthma biologics. RESULTS: Because of variations in inclusion criteria and natural variations in enrolled cohorts, the baseline clinical traits and severity of study populations in asthma biologic trials differed significantly, which is important because baseline annualized exacerbation rates and blood eosinophilia are both strong predictors of a biologic's success. Notwithstanding, the trial results, when considered together, can help guide care providers in choosing the most appropriate biologic for our patients. CONCLUSION: Understanding the details and differences in asthma biologic trial designs, patient cohorts, and in study results will help care providers make more informed decisions when choosing a biologic. We are hopeful this review will serve as a reference to care providers for this purpose.
OBJECTIVE: Five biologic therapies have FDA-approved indications for difficult-to-control asthma. The clinical trials that proved the efficacy and safety of these biologics were often similar in their inclusion criteria, study designs, and endpoints. Many of these trials have been reanalyzed post hoc to identify subsets of subjects considered to be enhanced responders. As a result, keeping up with the literature and deciding on the most appropriate biologic for our patients has become increasingly difficult. This review summarizes and compares trial designs, patient cohorts, and study results of the major trials involving these therapies. DATA SOURCES: Included are basic science articles, online Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applications, and all the published reports of phase II and phase III clinical trials for FDA-approved asthma biologics. STUDY SELECTIONS: Included are the major phase II and phase III clinical trials of 5 asthma biologics. RESULTS: Because of variations in inclusion criteria and natural variations in enrolled cohorts, the baseline clinical traits and severity of study populations in asthma biologic trials differed significantly, which is important because baseline annualized exacerbation rates and blood eosinophilia are both strong predictors of a biologic's success. Notwithstanding, the trial results, when considered together, can help guide care providers in choosing the most appropriate biologic for our patients. CONCLUSION: Understanding the details and differences in asthma biologic trial designs, patient cohorts, and in study results will help care providers make more informed decisions when choosing a biologic. We are hopeful this review will serve as a reference to care providers for this purpose.
Authors: Atul Gupta; Masanori Ikeda; Bob Geng; Jay Azmi; Robert G Price; Eric S Bradford; Steven W Yancey; Jonathan Steinfeld Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Kevin Murphy; Joshua Jacobs; Leif Bjermer; John M Fahrenholz; Yael Shalit; Margaret Garin; James Zangrilli; Mario Castro Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2017 Nov - Dec
Authors: Parameswaran Nair; Sally Wenzel; Klaus F Rabe; Arnaud Bourdin; Njira L Lugogo; Piotr Kuna; Peter Barker; Stephanie Sproule; Sandhia Ponnarambil; Mitchell Goldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicola A Hanania; Oral Alpan; Daniel L Hamilos; John J Condemi; Irmarie Reyes-Rivera; Jin Zhu; Karin E Rosen; Mark D Eisner; Dennis A Wong; William Busse Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sumita Khatri; Wendy Moore; Peter G Gibson; Richard Leigh; Arnaud Bourdin; Jorge Maspero; Manuel Barros; Roland Buhl; Peter Howarth; Frank C Albers; Eric S Bradford; Martyn Gilson; Robert G Price; Steven W Yancey; Hector Ortega Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Mario Castro; Sally E Wenzel; Eugene R Bleecker; Emilio Pizzichini; Piotr Kuna; William W Busse; David L Gossage; Christine K Ward; Yanping Wu; Bing Wang; Deepak B Khatry; René van der Merwe; Roland Kolbeck; Nestor A Molfino; Donald G Raible Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 30.700