Background
Asthma is a heterogeneous condition characterised by chronic inflammation of the pulmonary airways, [
1] with an estimated 300 million people currently affected worldwide [
2] and an increasing prevalence. Severe asthma is defined, following a confirmed diagnosis of asthma and appropriate treatment of comorbidities, as asthma requiring high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a second controller and/or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming “uncontrolled” or remaining “uncontrolled” despite this therapy (refractory) [
1,
3]. Its prevalence is estimated at 5–10% of the total asthma population [
4]. In addition, several studies have shown that, despite the availability of effective treatments such as ICS, long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), leukotriene modifiers, and tiotropium, over 50% of asthma patients are assessed as not well-controlled in standard clinical practice [
5,
6] and many require further therapies such as oral corticosteroids (OCS) and biologics [
7]. Over 50% of deaths caused by asthma are reported in patients with a history of severe asthma [
8], and this severe condition is associated with increased healthcare costs and morbidity and mortality [
9,
10]. Furthermore, from the patient’s point of view, severe asthma can be an incapacitating disease as well as a threat to identity and life roles [
11], and severe asthma patients using OCS are at higher risk of complications such as diabetes or hypertension. These OCS-related comorbidities increase the burden of disease for patients and healthcare providers [
12,
13].
In the recently updated Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the use of biologics before using maintenance OCS is recommended in step 5. In Europe, as of March 2020, there were four marketed biologics for asthma: omalizumab (Xolair®, Novartis Pharma GmbH), an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human IgE and prevents its binding to high-affinity IgE receptors [
14], indicated in Europe as an add-on therapy to improve asthma control in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma; mepolizumab (Nucala®, GlaxoSmithKline) [
15] and reslizumab (Cinqaero®, Teva) [
16], both targeting interleukin-5 (IL-5) and indicated in severe eosinophilic asthma; and benralizumab (Fasenra®, AstraZeneca), the most recently marketed monoclonal antibody to date. The latter binds to the human IL-5 receptor (IL-5R) through its Fab domain, thereby preventing IL-5 from binding to its receptor and inhibiting differentiation and maturation of eosinophils in the bone marrow. In addition, this antibody has the ability to bind through its afucosylated Fc domain to the RIIIa region of the Fc receptor on natural killer cells, macrophages, and neutrophils, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) of both blood eosinophils and tissue-resident eosinophils [
17,
18].
Given that monoclonal antibodies are expensive, clear indications should be established to optimise access to these therapies and ensure maximum efficiency [
19,
20]. Thus, prior to initiating treatment with a biologic agent, patients with severe asthma should be classified into phenotypes. Among the various asthma phenotypes/endotypes, late-onset eosinophilic asthma is, together with allergic asthma, one of the best defined phenotypes and the most common clinical phenotype seen in the specialised severe asthma units of Pneumology departments in Spain [
21]. The definitive diagnosis of eosinophilic asthma is based on an appropriate medical record and evidence of eosinophilia in bronchial biopsies or induced sputum, which can also be estimated with a reasonable accuracy in peripheral blood. Eosinophilic inflammation occurs in more than 50% of patients with allergic and non-allergic asthma, and elevated eosinophil counts in both peripheral blood and airways are associated with recurrent exacerbations of the disease and severe airflow limitation [
22]. Eosinophilic asthma is driven by type-2 inflammatory mechanisms that are dependent on the activity of T helper-2 lymphocytes and group 2 innate lymphoid cells [
23,
24]. Among the wide range of pro-inflammatory mediators released by these cells, IL-5 is the key cytokine responsible for most of the functions of eosinophils, including their maturation in the bone marrow, activation, chemotaxis, survival, and proliferation [
25]. In addition, type-2 asthma generally responds well to ICS [
26] which are potent inducers of eosinophil apoptosis [
27]. However, some patients with eosinophilic asthma respond poorly to ICS and even to OCS [
28]. Therefore, the eosinophil pathway and IL-5 pathway are appropriate therapeutic targets in patients with corticosteroid-refractory severe eosinophilic asthma. Benralizumab, as an interleukin-5 receptor alpha–directed cytolytic humanised IgG1k monoclonal antibody, induces direct, rapid, and nearly complete depletion of eosinophils via enhanced ADCC [
29].
In the phase 3 clinical trials conducted (SIROCCO [
30], CALIMA [
31], and ZONDA [
32]), benralizumab reduced the annual rate of severe asthma exacerbations and the use of OCS, and improved symptom control and lung function determined by the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Additionally, the BORA study [
33] has shown its long-term efficacy and safety. However, because of the recent marketing approval of benralizumab, few real-life data are available to date. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of benralizumab in real life based on the assessment of symptom control, emergency department visits, use of oral and inhaled corticosteroids, lung function, and safety at 6 months of treatment.
Discussion
Several clinical trials have shown that benralizumab is safe and effective in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma. However, it is well known that real-life data may differ from data obtained from pivotal studies, as conventional randomised controlled trials emphasise internal validity through standardisation and control, but by design, they reduce external validity and therefore the generalisability of results and conclusions [
43]. The present study confirms that in a real-life setting, benralizumab also improves asthma control, reduces emergency department visits and the use of both oral and inhaled corticosteroids, and improves lung function, which is in line with pivotal studies SIROCCO [
30], CALIMA [
31], and ZONDA [
32]. In addition, we have found that outcomes improved with time. In a recent study of 13 corticosteroid-dependent patients in a real-life setting, [
44] it was shown that a single dose of benralizumab led to a rapid improvement of asthma control and lung function, to decreased blood eosinophil counts, and to a reduction in the use of OCS. The authors postulate that the rapid therapeutic action observed is a consequence of the fast and effective depletion of eosinophils induced by benralizumab via IL-5R blockade and ADCC-mediated apoptosis of these cells [
44]. However, our study suggests that improvement continues with time as results at 6 months are not only better compared with baseline but also compared with the results at 3 months of treatment. Thus, although initial improvement may be rapid and significant, improvement continues during the first 6 months, not only with regard to asthma control but also to lung function, emergency department visits, and use of inhaled and oral corticosteroids.
The major improvement in the ACT score at 3 months of treatment and the improving trend which continued up to the 6 months evaluation are similar to or even better than the results obtained in clinical trials, which have also demonstrated a significant decrease in the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-6) score [
30,
31]. As for the number of emergency department visits in our study, these dropped by 55.8% (
p < 0.001) at 3 months and continued decreasing until reaching 85.3% (
p < 0.001) at 6 months, while in the SIROCCO and the CALIMA studies, reductions in exacerbations were 42% per year (
p < 0.001) [
30] and 36% per year (
p < 0.001) [
31], respectively. This greater improvement compared to the pivotal studies could also be associated with the greater disease severity of patients included in our study. The figures in the pivotal studies are clearly lower than those obtained in the present study.
Furthermore, the clear reduction in the use of corticosteroids found in our study, with a reduction of 50% in corticosteroid dependence, is comparable with the data from the ZONDA study [
32] in which a 52% decrease in corticosteroid dependence at 28 weeks of treatment was evidenced. The reduction of 61.7% at 3 months and 74.4% at 6 months compared with baseline obtained in the dose of OCS is also comparable with the results from the ZONDA study [
32] where a 75% reduction in OCS use at 28 weeks was observed. However, our results are in contrast with those of Pelaia et al. [
44] who achieved OCS discontinuation in all the study patients in only four weeks. Given that most of our corticosteroid-dependent patients had been on OCS for years, we decided to perform a corticosteroid tapering similar to the one used in the ZONDA study [
32] in order to maintain symptom control and avoid potential side effects resulting from rapid discontinuation. As a result, the highest number of corticosteroid discontinuations was beginning to be observed at 6 months. In fact, we used a tapering-discontinuation protocol similar to the tapering algorithm for OCS published in the PONENTE study [
45], a phase 3 clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of OCS tapering following benralizumab treatment initiation in adult patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.
As for ICS, a reduction in their use was observed at 3 months of treatment and continued at 6 months, with statistically significant differences compared with the results obtained at 3 months (p = 0.020). This is particularly relevant as benralizumab not only seems to reduce the burden of systemic corticosteroids but may also reduce the burden of inhaled agents, an aspect that has not been assessed in other studies.
Lung function improvement (both in mL and percentage) was in line with the clinical trials. The difference between baseline FEV
1 and FEV
1 at 6 months was 0.291 L (
p < 0.001) in our study, whereas the difference with placebo was 0.159 L (
p = 0.0006) in the SIROCCO study [
28] and 0.116 L (
p = 0.0102) in the CALIMA study [
31] in patients with ≥300 eosinophils/μL. Thus, the difference in our study is greater than in the pivotal studies. However, this could be partly explained by the fact that in our study we could not take into account a placebo effect given that, as it was performed in a real-life setting, there was no placebo control group. Other real-life studies such as that of Pelaia et al. [
44] have shown improvements in FEV
1 of about 0.4 L, which would support the hypothesis that lung function improvement is greater in real-life situations. The new information our study provides is that, in addition, lung function continues to improve between 3 months and 6 months of treatment. Therefore, after the improvement that results from the first 3 doses of benralizumab, lung function can continue to improve.
With regard to the effectiveness of benralizumab in patients who had previously received another biologic agent, no differences compared to other patients in the study were found in clinical parameters such as subjective improvement, ACT score, emergency department visits and use of OCS, in lung function (FEV1 in mL or percentage), FeNO, blood eosinophil counts, or in side effects. To our knowledge, this is the first study that shows that benralizumab also improves the condition of patients whose asthma was unresponsive to a biologic treatment targeting the IL5 or IgE pathways. This is especially relevant in the current context of personalised medicine [
46] and highlights the need to measure biomarkers to guide treatment decisions [
47]. Some studies have shown that patients who do not respond to omalizumab can improve with anti-IL5 therapy. In the case of mepolizumab,
post-hoc analyses of two pivotal studies [
48] evidenced similar reductions in exacerbations and OCS use in asthmatic patients with and without prior omalizumab treatment. In the OSMO study [
49] where the main objective was to assess if patients eligible for both biologics, but not optimally controlled with omalizumab, experienced improved asthma control when switched directly to mepolizumab, the results showed that, in patients who were not optimally controlled by omalizumab treatment, switching to mepolizumab improved asthma control and reduced exacerbations. Similarly, a recently published prospective and multicentre study with reslizumab [
50] provided evidence that, for patients who do not respond to omalizumab, the switch from omalizumab to reslizumab improves patient control and reduces the use of OCS. Based on our study results showing a clinical improvement in patients who had failed to respond to omalizumab or mepolizumab, we believe that benralizumab is a very good treatment option for patients with severe refractory eosinophilic asthma.
Benralizumab has also been shown to be effective in atopic patients and our results are in agreement with a
post-hoc analysis [
51] of two clinical trials indicating that benralizumab is efficacious in severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma regardless of atopy status.
Lastly, in line with published works [
33], side effects were mild and well tolerated, with no treatment discontinuations during the first 6 months of treatment.
Our study has some limitations. Because this was a real-life study, there is no placebo control group so placebo effect could not be assessed. Furthermore, even though this study was conducted in a real-life setting with the longest follow-up period to date (6 months), longer follow-up times would be necessary to establish when maximum improvement is reached.
Its strengths, on the other hand, lie in the fact that, to our knowledge, to date this is the real-life study of benralizumab with the greatest number of patients enrolled and the longest follow-up period. In addition, it is a multicentre study that was conducted at two different severe asthma units with a broad experience in the management and treatment of this disease. Finally, this was an independent study with no external funding and without the involvement of any pharmaceutical company.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.