Background
Omalizumab (OMA) is a biological drug recommended by Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) experts for the therapy of patients with uncontrolled severe allergic (IgE-dependent) bronchial asthma [
1]. Numerous clinical and observational studies have confirmed the efficacy of OMA in improving asthma control, reducing the number and severity of exacerbations, decreasing the need for inhaled (ICS) and oral corticosteroids (OCS) and rescue medications, as well as improving patients’ quality of life (QoL) [
2]. In 2003, the American Food and Drug Agency (FDA) recommended OMA for use in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, and 2 years later the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved its use in countries of the European Union.
On 17 March 2013, the program for the treatment of severe IgE-dependent bronchial asthma with OMA funded by the National Health Fund (NHF) was implemented in Poland [
3]. Previously, OMA was only available to a limited group of patients. Nowadays, the access to the therapy is wider but patients must fulfill strict program qualification criteria (Table
1).
Table 1
Comparison of the NHF omalizumab (OMA) treatment program regulations with the drug indications
Age | ≥12 years | ≥6 years |
tIgE in serum | 30–1500 IU/ml | 30–1500 IU/ml |
Severe allergic asthma with sensitization to whole-year allergens | Yes | Yes |
Uncontrolled asthma despite high-dose ICS plus an additional control drug | ACQ score > 1.5 points (1/6)a >1000 mcg BDP-CFC/day + LABA or LTRA or theophylline | Symptomatic High ICS dose + LABA |
Necessity of using OCS continuously or in bursts | Yes minimum of 5 mg of prednisone/day | No |
Multiple exacerbations | ≥3/year (1/6)a
| Yes |
Hospitalizations due to exacerbations | Yes (1/6)a
| Not required |
Life-threatening asthma attack in medical history | Yes (1/6)a
| Not required |
With airflow limitation | FEV1 < 60 % predicted (1/6)a
| FEV1 < 80 % predicted |
Additional criteria | AQLQ score < 5.0 points (1/6)a
| Not required |
Contraindications | Hypersensitivity to the drug | Hypersensitivity to the drug |
Co-morbidities inducing severe course of asthma | Yesb
| Not contraindicated |
Tobacco | Non-smokers – obligatory condition | Not contraindicated |
Pregnancy | Absolutely contraindicated | Should not be used during pregnancy unless clearly necessary |
Contraindications: simultaneous therapy with immunosuppressive drugs (e.g. methotrexate or cyclosporine), anticancer drugs, immunoglobulin infusions or other biological drugs | Yes | Lack of studies |
The aims of the study were to determine the clinical effectiveness of the OMA treatment program after 16 weeks of therapy in patients receiving the drug for the first time, and to evaluate asthma control after discontinuation of OMA in patients who did not obtain consent for participation in the program or had completed the therapy after 36 months.
Discussion
Patients in the Polish NHF program show significant benefits (good clinical effectiveness), including reduced use of OCS and severe exacerbation rate, improved asthma control and quality of life. Unfortunately after OMA discontinuation, frequent severe exacerbations were observed primarily in patients whose asthma was previously uncontrolled by high OCS doses.
This is the first early report presenting data on the effectiveness of OMA treatment within the Polish NHF program. The data were collected from one site only, but including 20 % of all patients participating in the program (the largest site in Poland). Besides, all of these patients had to fulfilled the same inclusion criteria, thus the population was uniform and the data should be representative for Poland. It must be stressed that only a limited number of patients qualified for the program due to the high price of the drug and the necessity to optimize costs in relation to clinical outcomes. All patients in our study adhered to strict NHF program qualification criteria. These qualification criteria differ from that of the OMA drug indications (Table
1) and the inclusion criteria applied for observational studies [
8‐
21]. Therefore, when comparing the results of this study to those of others, it is important to note these differences. In particular, the age of the patients, the parameters describing severe uncontrolled asthma, and some exclusion criteria are different for NHF treatment program qualification compared to traditional OMA drug indications.
First, the minimum age limit for qualification in the NHF program (12 years) differs from the OMA drug characteristics (6 years) (Table
1). While clinical studies have been performed in a patients as young as six, they were not included in the NHF program due to uncertainty about the pharmaco-economic factors in this age group. Second, all our patients in the NHF program used OCS chronically or frequently. This means that only severely ill patients, who had not responded to OCS, were included. Due to this prolonged OCS use, a high percentage (57 %) of patients presented with diseases relating to OCS effects, including difficult to control hypertension, Cushingoid, diabetes, and osteoporosis (Table
2). The remaining criteria for inclusion in the program were taken from major and minor American Thoracic Society (ATS) criteria for detection of refractory asthma [
22]. These criteria are not covered in the drug characteristics, apart from high doses of ICS in combination with another drug to control asthma and impairment of lung ventilation. However, the degree of ventilation impairment in the NHF program criteria is more severe than in the drug characteristics or ATS criteria.
As the NHF program qualification criteria for OMA treatment are more restrictive compared to the clinical and observational studies carried out in other countries, our study cohort is characterized by a more severe course of asthma [
8‐
21,
23]. At baseline, our study group is most similar to the French cohort study [
8], which began before OMA was registered in the European Union. In the French study, OMA therapy was administered to patients suffering severe and chronic asthma who did not respond to standard treatment. Our study cohort also shows a similar asthma severity at baseline to the British cohort study [
19], for which patients were qualified according to previous criteria endorsed by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Health Service (NHS).
By comparing clinical data (ACQ, AQLQ, OCS dose, frequency of exacerbations, and hospitalizations) at baseline to that gathered after 16 weeks of OMA therapy, we showed that the implementation of the OMA treatment program in Poland has high clinical effectiveness in patients with severe bronchial asthma. This is similar to other studies, which have shown that OMA therapy results in an improvement in asthma control, QoL, requirement for systemic corticosteroids, and a decrease in frequency of severe exacerbations [
9,
14,
17,
18]. However, it is difficult to directly compare our results to those obtained in other studies due to differences in the evaluation of clinical parameters.
The clinical effect of OMA begins from 12–16 weeks and is maintained in over 90 % of treated patients (91.4 %) over subsequent weeks [
24]. Similar conclusions were drawn in other real life studies [
14,
25]. Therefore, evaluating OMA efficacy at 16 weeks is justified. In our study, we used the GETE scale to evaluate the OMA treatment response at 16 weeks. In the doctor’s opinion, all patients in the Polish OMA treatment program showed either excellent or good treatment response. This is in agreement with the results from across Poland; during first year of program OMA treatment was discontinued in only 9 of 278 qualified patients due to the lack of adequate response to the treatment or side effects [
26]. However, it is important to note that the percentage of patients who were evaluated after 16 weeks of treatment was not noted [
26].
Compared to our study that showed 100 % OMA response, the percentage of responders (in the GETE scale) in the INNOVATE study was only 61 % [
27]. Similarly, when data from seven clinical studies (published between 2001 and 2005) was analyzed, ~60 % OMA treatment efficacy was observed [
28]. On the other hand, results of other real life studies revealed a higher level (70–84 %) of OMA treatment efficacy [
9,
14,
17,
18]. These differences in OMA efficacy may be due to the fact that OMA therapy provides the best advantage for more severe asthma patients [
29]. Such patients may have been excluded from some previous clinical studies. However, as indicated earlier, patients within the Polish NHF OMA treatment program were characterized by more severe asthma than in other cohorts, and therefore, the high clinical effectiveness of OMA therapy (100 % response rate) in our cohort is not surprising.
The optimal duration for OMA therapy remains unclear, although it has been estimated theoretically to be 5 years [
30]. In the Polish program, OMA therapy is anticipated for 2 years but is not administered longer than 3 years. To date, only a few studies have evaluated asthma control after OMA discontinuation. We previously reported that following OMA cessation, some patients show a gradual worsening of asthma control and an increase in severe asthma exacerbations after only a short period (i.e., 7.56 ± 2.67 weeks) [
7]. Similarly, a relapse of symptoms after OMA cessation was observed in the INNOVATE study [
31]. In another study of 61 patients whose OMA treatment was discontinued after almost 2 years (22.7 ± 13.1 months), 55.7 % (34/61) of patients showed worsening of asthma control (mean time to the loss of control was 20.4 ± 2.6 months) [
32]. OMA was reintroduced in 59 % (20/34) of these patients, but secondary resistance to OMA was noted in 20 % (4/20) of cases. Although we did not observe a secondary lack of response to OMA treatment in our study, it did take longer for some patients to improve, and the improvement was not as significant as when OMA was used for the first time.
Only one other study by Nopp et al. has evaluated the stability of continuous OMA therapy [
33]. They studied patients with severe asthma who were treated with OMA for 6 years, and subsequently observed for a 3-year period. None of these patients had previously used OCS continuously. All the patients responded well to the treatment, and a 6-year stability of the OMA therapeutic effect was observed [
33]. While asthma condition worsened in 6/18 (33 %) of patients 3-years after OMA cessation, the majority (12/18, 67 %) of patients reported an improvement in or an unchanged asthma condition [
33]. This is different to our study where we observed a gradual worsening of asthma control upon OMA cessation in the majority of patients. However, our cohort of patients differed from other studies with regards to the severity of asthma at the time of enrolment and upon treatment cessation. Therefore, apart from the duration of the therapy, the course of asthma, the level of response to treatment, and other clinical features, can affect the stability of the response to OMA after its cessation. This indicates that decisions regarding cessation of OMA treatment should be undertaken individually, taking into consideration the benefits and risks.
It is estimated that about 1000 severe allergic asthma patients in Poland could potentially be treated with OMA [
34], but due to the current strict inclusion criteria many patients may not receive the necessary treatment. In addition, GINA and expert panel report 3 (EPR-3) recommendations suggest that OMA should be included prior to regular OCS treatment. Therefore, in order to bring the Polish OMA treatment program in line with the rest of the European Union, the Group of Experts of the Polish Society of Allergology have proposed that the minimum age limit could be lowered, the requirement for earlier treatment with systemic corticosteroids used continuously or nearly continuously could be abolished, and the FEV1 threshold value could be raised [
35]. Such measures would see more patients benefit from the program.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Piotr Czerkies and Ismail Kasujee from Novartis AG for their valuable comments.
Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Proper Medical Writing Sp. z o.o., in particular Julia Archbold, PhD, for language and technical corrections and Agnieszka Linkiewicz-Zegan for formatting the final version of our manuscript.
And specially author would like to thank all doctors, nurses and other staff working in Dept. of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Barlicki University Hospital, Medical University of Lodz who take carry of patients.
Competing interests
The study was funded by the Medical University of Lodz. Piotr Kuna and Izabela Kupryś-Lipińska received speaker honoraria from Novartis Poland Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland). Others authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
IKL conceived the idea for the study and wrote the first draft of the paper. PM made statistical analysis. JM built the data base. PK consulted the project at all its stages. All authors thoroughly reviewed each draft and approved the final version of the manuscript.