UNASSIGNED: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a highly prevalent and difficult to manage cutaneous disease characterized by the presence of recurrent urticaria, angioedema, or both, for a period of 6 weeks or longer. One of the biological treatments used for patients with CSU with an autoimmune background and bad control of the disease is omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody. The understanding of the mechanism of action of this biological drug in CSU along with the identification of potential biomarkers of clinical response can be helpful in the personalized management of the disease.
UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of omalizumab on peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations in patients with CSU in order to identify potential biomarkers of treatment response.
UNASSIGNED: We analyzed 71 patients with CSU [33 under omalizumab and 38 under non-immunomodulatory drugs (treated with antihistamines; NID)] and 50 healthy controls. An exhaustive immunophenotyping of whole blood T-cell subpopulations, including naïve, central memory, effector memory, effector cells, Th1, Th2, and Th17 was performed by multiparametric flow cytometry. Moreover, in CSU patients, we analyzed markers of inflammation (ESR, DD, CRP), atopy (prick test, IgE quantification), and autoimmunity (anti-thyroid antibodies and indirect basophil activation test).To evaluate the clinical activity, the Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS 7) test was used.
UNASSIGNED: In patients with CSU under treatment with omalizumab, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of naïve and an increase in the percentage of central memory CD4 T cells as well as a decrease in the percentage of naïve and increase in the percentage of effector CD8 T-cell subsets. Moreover, patients under treatment with omalizumab had higher percentages of Th1 and Th2 cells than patients under treatment with NID.
UNASSIGNED: The immune monitoring of T-cell subpopulations in patients with CSU starting omalizumab, may be a useful strategy to analyze treatment response in the clinical practice.

Background: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the appearance of very pruritic subepidermal blisters. It appears mostly in the elderly and is associated with multiple comorbidities, which makes its management and treatment difficult. The purpose of this systematic review is to compile current information on published cases of BP treated with omalizumab (omalizumab) and dupilumab (dupilumab) in order to obtain information on clinical efficacy and safety data available. Methods: A literature search of all cases of BP treated with omalizumab/dupilumab published in the literature up to January 2024 was performed using the Pubmed database. After an exhaustive search, a total of 61 studies encompassing 886 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Results: The majority of patients with BP treated with omalizumab/dupilumab presented a significant improvement in symptomatology, being very safe drugs with minimal side effects. The main limitation of the presented review is the quality of the included studies, most of them being case series or individual cases. The development of studies with a higher level of scientific evidence in the near future would be of great interest. Conclusions: Both omalizumab and dupilumab appear to be effective options for treating BP in patients refractory to other pharmacological therapies. They are drugs with a good safety profile and the adverse reactions associated with their use are infrequent and generally mild.

Background: Indirect comparison among biologics in severe asthma (SA) is a challenging but desirable goal for clinicians in real life. The aim of the study is to define characteristics of a biologic-treated T2-driven-SA population and to evaluate the effectiveness of biologic treatments in a real-world setting by variation in intra/inter-biologic parameters in an up to 4-year follow-up. Methods: Demographic, clinical, functional, and biological characteristics were evaluated retrospectively in 104 patients recruited until July 2022 at baseline (T0) and over a maximum of 4 years (T4) of biologic therapy (omalizumab/OmaG = 41, from T0 to T4, mepolizumab/MepoG = 26, from T0 to T4, benralizumab/BenraG = 18, from T0 to T2, and dupilumab/DupiG = 19, from T0 to T1). Variations of parameters using means of paired Delta were assessed. Results: At baseline, patients had high prevalence of T2-driven comorbidities, low asthma control test (ACT mean 17.65 ± 4.41), impaired pulmonary function (FEV1 65 ± 18 %pred), frequent exacerbations/year (AEs 3.5 ± 3), and OCS dependence (60%). DupiG had lower T2 biomarkers/comorbidities and AEs, and worse FEV1 (57 ± 19 %pred) compared to other biologics (p < 0.05). All biologics improved ACT, FEV1%, FVC%, AEs rate, and OCS use. FEV1% improved in MepoG and BenraG over the minimal clinically important difference and was sustained over 4 years in OmaG and MepoG. A significant RV reduction in OmaG (T4) and DupiG (T1), and BenraG normalization (T2) of airflow limitation were found. We observed through inter-biologic parameters pair delta variation comparison a significant nocturnal awakenings reduction in BenraG vs. OmaG/MepoG, and neutrophils reduction in BenraG/DupiG vs. OmaG. Conclusions: Indirect comparison among biologics unveils clinical and functional improvements that may mark a different effectiveness. These results may highlight the preference of a single biologic compared to another with regard to specific treatable traits.

The presence of angioedema, or deep skin swelling, in addition to hives (wheals) in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) can complicate disease management. There is evidence that omalizumab is effective for patients with CSU with angioedema, but the time to a clinically meaningful response has not been assessed. This post hoc analysis examined data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind ASTERIA I and ASTERIA II studies: patients with CSU with hives were grouped by presence (n = 216) or absence of angioedema (n = 265) at baseline. The time to minimally important difference (MID, change from baseline of ≥11 points) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Median time to MID for omalizumab 300 mg was similar in patients with and without angioedema. Median time to MID for omalizumab 150 mg was similar to 300 mg for patients without angioedema, and was longer for patients with angioedema. Therefore, the response to omalizumab for patients with CSU with angioedema was dose dependent. We recommend that the best approach for clinicians, in line with guidelines, would be initial administration of omalizumab 300 mg every 4 weeks for all patients.
UNASSIGNED: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01287117 (registered 27 January 2011) and NCT01292473 (registered 7 February 2011).

Dupilumab was approved for the treatment of several dermatologic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and bullous pemphigoid; whereas omalizumab is the first biological agent which was approved to treat chronic spontaneous urticaria. None of the published meta-analyses has provided the sufficient data regarding the safety of these two biologics, especially regarding their potential serious adverse events (SAEs). The aim of this study was, to comprehensively evaluate the safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. In this study, we included 32 randomized trials, and performed meta-analyses on 113 types of SAEs regarding dupilumab and 61 types of SAEs regarding omalizumab. We identified that: (1) use of dupilumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of atopic dermatitis, while use of omalizumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of asthma; and (2) use of dupilumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 112 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases, while use of omalizumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 60 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases. This meta-analysis for the first time assessed the association between use of dupilumab or omalizumab and incidences of various SAEs, and identified that neither dupilumab use nor omalizumab use was associated with the increased risks of any SAEs including various infectious diseases. These findings further confirm the general safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. This informs clinicians that there is no need to worry too much about the safety issues of these two biologics.

BACKGROUND: A minority of school-aged children with asthma have persistent poor control and experience frequent asthma attacks despite maximal prescribed maintenance therapy. These children have higher morbidity and risk of death. The first add-on biologic therapy, omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks immunoglobulin (Ig)E, was licensed for children with severe asthma in 2005. While omalizumab is an effective treatment, non-response is common. A second biologic, mepolizumab which blocks interleukin 5 and targets eosinophilic inflammation, was licensed in 2018, but the licence was granted by extrapolation of adult clinical trial data to children. This non-inferiority (NI) trial will determine whether mepolizumab is as efficacious as omalizumab in reducing asthma attacks in children with severe therapy resistant asthma (STRA) and refractory difficult asthma (DA).
METHODS: This is an ongoing multicentre 1:1 randomised NI open-label trial of mepolizumab and omalizumab. Up to 150 children and young people (CYP) aged 6-17 years with severe asthma will be recruited from specialist paediatric severe asthma centres in the UK. Prior to randomisation, children will be monitored for medication adherence for up to 16 weeks to determine STRA and refractory DA diagnoses. Current prescribing recommendations of serum IgE and blood eosinophils will not influence eligibility or enrolment. The primary outcome is the 52-week asthma attack rate. Bayesian analysis using clinician-elicited prior distributions will be used to calculate the posterior probability that mepolizumab is not inferior to omalizumab. Secondary outcomes include Composite Asthma Severity Index, Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, lung function measures (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), bronchodilator reversibility), fractional exhaled nitric oxide, Asthma Control Test (ACT), health outcomes EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and optimal serum IgE and blood eosinophil levels that may predict a response to therapy. These outcomes will be analysed in a frequentist framework using longitudinal models.
BACKGROUND: The study has been approved by the South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee REC Number 19/SC/0634 and had Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (EudraCT 2019-004085-17). All parents/legal guardians will give informed consent for their child to participate in the trial, and CYP will give assent to participate. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international conferences and disseminated via our patient and public involvement partners.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN12109108; EudraCT Number: 2019-004085-17.

UNASSIGNED: Allergic asthma has a considerable burden on the quality of life. A significant portion of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma patients need omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin-E monoclonal antibody, as an add-on therapy. In this phase III clinical trial P043 (Zerafil®, CinnaGen, Iran) efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were compared with Xolair® (the originator omalizumab). The primary outcome was the rate of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations.
UNASSIGNED: Exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT) results, spirometry measurements, immunogenicity, and safety were evaluated. Each subject received either medication with a dose ranging from 150 to 375 mg based on pre-treatment serum total IgE level (IU/mL) and body weight (kg) every two or four weeks for a duration of 28 weeks.
UNASSIGNED: Exacerbation rates were 0.150 (CI: 0.079-0.220) in the P043 group, and 0.190 (CI: 0.110-0.270) in the omalizumab group (per-protocol). The least squares mean differences of predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in the First second (FEV1) were -2.51% (CI: -7.17-2.15, P=0.29) and -3.87% (CI: -8.79-1.04, P=0.12), pre- and post-bronchodilator use. The mean ± SD of ACT scores at the screening and the last visit were 10.62 ± 2.93 and 20.93 ± 4.26 in P043 and 11.09 ± 2.75 and 20.46 ± 5.11 in the omalizumab group. A total of 288 adverse events were reported for the 256 enrolled participants. Among all, \"dyspnea\" and \"headache\" were the most reported ones. The overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.62) and serious adverse events (P=0.07) had no significant differences between the two groups. None of the samples were positive for anti-drug antibodies.
UNASSIGNED: P043 was equivalent to omalizumab in the management of asthma in reduction of exacerbations. There was no significant difference in other efficacy and safety parameters.
UNASSIGNED: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05813470) and www.IRCT.ir (IRCT20150303021315N20).

UNASSIGNED: Although omalizumab has shown success in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) patients unresponsive to antihistamines, the exact mechanism of action and predictive markers of response remain unclear.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to examine the correlation between baseline levels of biomarkers and clinical parameters with omalizumab response and response rate in patients with CSU.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study included 82 adult CSU patients who received omalizumab 300mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks between January 2022 and December 2023. Treatment response was assessed using UAS7 and DLQI scores at baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16. Responders were defined as patients achieving UAS7 < 7, with early and late responders categorized based on response within or after 4 weeks, respectively. Baseline clinical features and laboratory biomarkers were compared between responders and non-responders.
UNASSIGNED: The overall response rate was 71.95% (59/82), with 23 early responders and 36 late responders. Responders had significantly lower baseline UAS7 (median: 28 vs 35, P < 0.01), DLQI (median: 8 vs 15, P < 0.001), and IL-17 levels (median: 0.53 vs 1.26 pg/mL, P < 0.001) compared to non-responders. Baseline UAS7 > 31, DLQI > 9.5, and IL-17 > 0.775 pg/mL predicted non-response with sensitivities of 78.26%, 100%, and 78.26%, and specificities of 67.8%, 59.32%, and 72.88%, respectively. ASST positivity and comorbid allergic diseases were associated with early response (P < 0.05). Adverse events were reported in 6.09% of patients, including mild injection site reactions and transient urticaria exacerbation, not requiring treatment discontinuation.
UNASSIGNED: This study suggests that omalizumab is an effective and safe treatment option for antihistamine-refractory CSU. Baseline UAS7, DLQI, ASST status, serum total IgE levels, and IL-17 may serve as potential predictors of omalizumab response. Notably, ASST positivity and comorbid allergic diseases were associated with an early response to treatment. These findings highlight the importance of considering individual patient characteristics when predicting the likelihood and timing of response to omalizumab in CSU.

BACKGROUND: Traditional treatments for cedar seasonal allergic rhinitis include second-generation antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids, and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Omalizumab (Xolair®), an anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody, is an additional option for severe cases unresponsive to existing therapies. Numerous studies have demonstrated the therapeutic effectiveness of omalizumab for cedar seasonal allergic rhinitis; however, most reported results after only up to four weeks of follow-up. Therefore, this study evaluates the clinical efficacy of omalizumab throughout one whole cedar pollen season.   Subjects and methods: This study included patients from our department and the Otorhinolaryngology Department of Minami Osaka Hospital between 2021 and 2023 who were ≥ 12 years old and had serum total IgE levels of 30-1,500 IU/mL, a baseline weight of 30-150 kg, and persistent severe nasal symptoms despite conventional treatments. Patients taking oral steroids at the time of enrollment or had fewer than two omalizumab doses were excluded. Forty-six patients (26 males, 20 females; mean age, 19.1 ± 11.2 years) met these criteria and received subcutaneous omalizumab every 2 or 4 weeks based on their IgE levels and weight. Symptoms were assessed at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks post-administration using the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and the Japanese Standard Quality of Life Questionnaire (JRQLQ No. 1) for allergic rhinitis.   Results: Thirty-six patients were followed up for 8 weeks and 13 for 12 weeks. TNSS significantly improved from 6.6 to 4.5 at 4 weeks, 4.2 at 8 weeks, and 4.1 at 12 weeks (p<0.05). Nasal discharge, sneezing, nasal obstruction, itchy eyes, and tearfulness showed significant improvements (p<0.05). Quality of life scores improved in daily activities, sleep, and physical health from week 4 to week 12.   Discussion: Consistent with previous findings, omalizumab significantly improved nasal and ocular symptoms and quality of life in patients with severe cedar seasonal allergic rhinitis. Despite many patients discontinuing the drug after eight weeks due to high costs, the drug\'s effectiveness in preventing symptom recurrence suggests potential long-term benefits. Combining omalizumab with SLIT showed no significant differences in outcomes; however, further pharmacoeconomic studies are warranted to evaluate cost-effectiveness.   Conclusion: Omalizumab proved to be an effective treatment for severe cedar seasonal allergic rhinitis, providing significant symptom relief and quality of life improvements. Further studies should investigate its long-term efficacy and safety, including potential adverse effects and the development of anti-omalizumab antibodies.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a chronic autoimmune disease affecting the elderly population and characterized by the formation of subepidermal tense bullae. Treatment options include topical steroids, systemic steroids, immunosuppressants, and antimicrobials, and there is emerging evidence of the efficacy of omalizumab. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate omalizumab\'s efficacy for treating BP, and we also reported treatment-related adverse events. The retrospective cohort study included patients with BP who were followed up in our clinic\'s bullous diseases department between 2016 and 2023. Patients who received omalizumab were included in the study. Treatment responses of all patients were assessed by BP Disease Area Index activity and damage scores, treatment scale scoring, steroid dose reduction, and the presence/absence of pruritus. Also, total IgE levels of patients before the treatment onset and at the last visit were compared. There were 15 (male/female = 8/7) BP patients receiving omalizumab treatment. Omalizumab therapy allowed steroid dose reduction at a median of 1 month. Omalizumab (25.5 mg, 95% confidence interval 17.2-33.9, P < .001) provided a significant steroid dose reduction at the last visit compared to the beginning of treatment. Omalizumab resulted in a decrease in BP Disease Area Index activity score of 80.8 (95% confidence interval 71.8-89.8, P < .001). Also, omalizumab caused significant decline in IgE levels compared to baseline (1102.5 ± 834.5 vs 834.6 ± 613.6, P = .002). In this study, omalizumab treatment was an effective and safe option in BP patients with high baseline IgE levels who are refractory to or cannot tolerate other immunosuppressive therapies.