Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Respir Med. 2024 Nov-Dec;234:107802. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2024.107802. Epub 2024 Sep 10.
The underlying population of patients selected for each respiratory monoclonal antibody might change as other biologics are approved.
To evaluate effect modification by calendar time of the effectiveness of each respiratory biologics in asthma.
The Effectiveness of Respiratory biologics in Asthma (ERA) is a retrospective cohort of severe asthma patients from the Mass General Brigham clinics between January 2013 and September 2023. Periods were pre-specified as the anti-IgE (2013-2015), anti-IL5 (2016-2018), anti-IL4/13 (2019-2021) or anti-alarmin (2022-2023) era. We evaluated each biologic's effect on asthma-related exacerbations comparing the one-year period before and after therapy initiation using Poisson regression and Cox regression for time-to-first exacerbation.
Of 647 biologic-naïve patients, 165 initiated omalizumab, 235 anti-IL5, 227 dupilumab, and 20 tezepelumab. Omalizumab's effectiveness improved as more biologics were approved: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.16 [0.94-1.43] anti-IgE era vs. 0.54 [0.37-0.80] anti-IL4/13-alarmin era. Omalizumab patients in the anti-IL4/13-alarmin era had lower blood eosinophil counts and less chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). For anti-IL5s, effectiveness peaked in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.52 [0.42-0.64]) when patients had higher BMI and less concomitant CRSwNP. Dupilumab was most effective in the anti-IL4/13 era (IRR 0.60 [0.50-0.72]). There were fewer current smokers in dupilumab patients in the anti-IL4/13 era. Results were similar in time-to-event analyses and in sensitivity analyses accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are temporal variations in the effectiveness of biologics partly explained by the shift in the underlying population, particularly for omalizumab. Though having more choices was associated with better patient selection for omalizumab, this was inconsistent for other biologics.
随着其他生物制剂的批准,每种呼吸单克隆抗体所选择的患者基础人群可能会发生变化。
评估每个呼吸生物制剂在哮喘中的有效性的日历时间的效应修饰。
呼吸生物制剂在哮喘中的疗效(ERA)是一个回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 9 月期间马萨诸塞州总医院布赖恩特诊所的严重哮喘患者。期间预先指定为抗 IgE(2013-2015 年)、抗 IL5(2016-2018 年)、抗 IL4/13(2019-2021 年)或抗警报素(2022-2023 年)时代。我们使用泊松回归和 Cox 回归比较治疗开始前后的一年时间,评估每种生物制剂对哮喘相关加重的影响。
在 647 名生物制剂初治患者中,165 名患者开始使用奥马珠单抗,235 名患者使用抗 IL5,227 名患者使用度普利尤单抗,20 名患者使用替西单抗。随着更多生物制剂的批准,奥马珠单抗的有效性得到改善:发病率比(IRR)在抗 IgE 时代为 1.16[0.94-1.43],在抗 IL4/13-警报素时代为 0.54[0.37-0.80]。在抗 IL4/13-警报素时代,奥马珠单抗患者的血嗜酸性粒细胞计数较低,慢性鼻-鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉(CRSwNP)较少。对于抗 IL5s,当患者 BMI 较高且同时伴有较少的 CRSwNP 时,有效性在抗 IL4/13 时代达到峰值(IRR 0.52[0.42-0.64])。在抗 IL4/13 时代,度普利尤单抗的疗效最佳(IRR 0.60[0.50-0.72])。在抗 IL4/13 时代,度普利尤单抗患者中当前吸烟者较少。在考虑到 COVID-19 大流行的时间事件分析和敏感性分析中,结果相似。
生物制剂的有效性存在时间上的变化,部分原因是基础人群的变化,尤其是奥马珠单抗。尽管有更多的选择与奥马珠单抗更好的患者选择有关,但这对于其他生物制剂并不一致。