FcRn as a Transporter for Nasal Delivery of Biologics: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fieux M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8234196 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveChronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a common and heterogeneous inflammatory condition, for which the drivers of the underlying inflammation are not yet fully understood. The use of biologic therapies to target specifically relevant effector cells or cytokines in CRSwNP is a growing field of interest. The objectives of this review are to provide an update on the existing studies of biologics in CRSwNP and to identify potential future areas for further research.Data sourcesAn initial literature review of biologic therapies in CRS was performed through publications gathered from a PubMed search for title/abstract containing "biologic" and "chronic rhinosinusitis." Further manuscripts describing scientific premise for each biologic were then reviewed.Study selectionsA detailed review of all studies describing biologic therapies targeting inflammation in CRSwNP was performed.ResultsBiologic therapies targeting interleukin (IL)-4Rα, IL-5, IL-5Rα, IL-33, immunoglobulin (Ig)E, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) have all been developed and have been investigated for treatment in CRSwNP, or current research suggests that they may have utility in this area. Only dupilumab, which inhibits IL-4Rα, has gained Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of adults with inadequately controlled CRSwNP.ConclusionRecent advances in our understanding of the fundamental drivers of the chronic respiratory inflammation in CRSwNP has led to the identification of several potential therapeutic targets for this disease. Future clinical success will rely on the availability of biomarker-based endotyping and responder analyses so that clinicians can precisely match each patient to the appropriate biologic, thereby optimizing the proper treatment strategy.
| S-EPMC7113089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review aimed to reevaluate the available evidence of the use of biologics as treatment candidates for the treatment of severe and advanced COVID-19 disease; what are the rationale for their use, which are the most studied, and what kind of efficacy measures are described? A search through Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Medline, medrxiv.org, and Google scholar was performed on the use of biologic interventions in COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral pneumonia, and sepsis, until 11 January 2022. Throughout the research, we identified 4821 records, of which 90 were selected for qualitative analysis. Amongst the results, we identified five popular targets of use: IL6 and IL1 inhibitors, interferons, mesenchymal stem cells treatment, and anti-spike antibodies. None of them offered conclusive evidence of their efficacy with consistency and statistical significance except for some studies with anti-spike antibodies; however, Il6 and IL1 inhibitors as well as interferons show encouraging data in terms of increased survival and favorable clinical course that require further studies with better methodology standardization.
| S-EPMC9321859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors increase susceptibility to tuberculosis, but the effect of biologics on susceptibility to leprosy has not been described. Moreover, biologics may play a role in treating erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL). The objectives of this systematic review were to determine whether the development of clinical leprosy is increased in patients being treated with biologics and to assess the use of biologics in treating leprosy reactions. A systematic literature review was completed of patients with leprosy who received treatment with biologics either before or after a diagnosis of leprosy was confirmed. All studies and case reports were included for qualitative evaluation. The search yielded 10 cases (including one duplicate publication) of leprosy diagnosed after initiation of TNF-α inhibitors and four case reports of refractory ENL successfully treated with infliximab or etanercept. An unpublished case of persistent ENL responsive to infliximab is also presented. These data demonstrate that the use of TNF-α inhibitors may be a risk factor for developing leprosy or reactivating subclinical infections. Leprosy can present with skin lesions and arthritis, so leprosy should be considered in patients presenting with these signs before starting treatment with these agents. Leprosy should be considered in patients who develop worsening eruptions and neurologic symptoms during treatment with TNF-α inhibitors. Finally, TNF-α inhibitors appear effective in some cases of refractory ENL.
| S-EPMC7204592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.ResultsOf >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0-83%), adalimumab (0-54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21-52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0-1%), ustekinumab (1-11%), etanercept (0-13%), and golimumab (0-19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb- patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases.ConclusionsBased on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.
| S-EPMC5548814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A special symposium of the Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences Nanomedicines Focus Group reviewed the current status of the use of nanomedicines for the delivery of biologics drugs. This meeting was particularly timely with the recent approval of the first siRNA-containing product Onpattro™ (patisiran), which is formulated as a lipid nanoparticle for intravenous infusion, and the increasing interest in the use of nanomedicines for the oral delivery of biologics. The challenges in delivering such molecules were discussed with specific emphasis on the delivery both across and into cells. The latest developments in Molecular Envelope Technology® (Nanomerics Ltd, London, UK), liposomal drug delivery (both from an academic and industrial perspective), opportunities offered by the endocytic pathway, delivery using genetically engineered viral vectors (PsiOxus Technologies Ltd, Abingdon, UK), Transint™ technology (Applied Molecular Transport Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA), which has the potential to deliver a wide range of macromolecules, and AstraZeneca's initiatives in mRNA delivery were covered with a focus on their uses in difficult to treat diseases, including cancers. Preclinical data were presented for each of the technologies and where sufficiently advanced, plans for clinical studies as well as early clinical data. The meeting covered the work in progress in this exciting area and highlighted some key technologies to look out for in the future.
| S-EPMC6572454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInflammatory autoimmune diseases are chronic diseases that often affect women of childbearing age. Therefore, detailed knowledge of the safety profile of medications used for management of inflammatory autoimmune diseases during pregnancy is important. However, in many cases the potential harmful effects of medications (especially biologics) during pregnancy (and lactation) on mother and child have not been fully identified.ObjectiveOur aim was to update the data on the occurrence of miscarriages and (major) congenital malformations when using biologics during pregnancy based on newly published articles. Additionally, we selected several different secondary outcomes that may be of interest for clinicians, especially information on adverse events in the use of a specific biologic during pregnancy.Material and methodsA search was conducted from 1 January 2015 until 4 July 2019 in Embase.com, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar with specific search terms for each database. Selection of publications was based on title/abstract and followed by full text (double blinded, two researchers). An overview was made based on outcomes of interest. References of the included publications were reviewed to include and minimize the missing publications.ResultsA total of 143 publications were included. The total number of cases ranged from nine for canakinumab to 4276 for infliximab. The rates of miscarriages and major congenital malformations did not show relevant differences from those rates in the general population.ConclusionDespite limitations to our study, no major safety issues were reported and no trend could be identified in the reported malformations.
| S-EPMC7568712 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6472522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic autoimmune inflammation of the colon. The condition significantly decreases quality of life and generates a substantial economic burden for healthcare payers, patients and the society in which they live. Some patients require chronic pharmacotherapy, and access to novel biologic drugs might be crucial for long-term remission. The analyses of cost-effectiveness for biologic drugs are necessary to assess their efficiency and provide the best available drugs to patients. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to collect and assess the quality of economic analyses carried out for biologic agents used in the treatment of UC, as well as to summarize evidence on the drivers of cost-effectiveness and evaluate the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. METHODS:A systematic database review was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and CRD0. Both authors independently reviewed the identified articles to determine their eligibility for final review. Hand searching of references in collected papers was also performed to find any relevant articles. The reporting quality of economic analyses included was evaluated by two reviewers using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement checklist. We reviewed the sensitivity analyses in cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the variables that may have changed the conclusions of the study. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were selected by identifying uncertain parameters that caused the highest change of the results of the analyses compared with base-case results. RESULTS:Of the 576 identified records, 87 were excluded as duplicates and 16 studies were included in the final review; evaluations for Canada, the UK and Poland were mostly performed. The majority of the evaluations revealed were performed for infliximab (approximately 75% of total volume); however, some assessments were also performed for adalimumab (50%) and golimumab (31%). Only three analyses were conducted for vedolizumab, whereas no relevant studies were found for etrolizumab and tofacitinib. The reporting quality of the included economic analyses was assessed as high, with an average score of 21 points per 24 maximum possible (range 14-23 points according to the ISPOR CHEERS statement checklist). In the case of most analyses, quality-adjusted life-years were used as a clinical outcome, and endpoints such as remission, response and mucosal healing were less common. The higher clinical effectiveness (based on response rates) of biological treatment over non-biological treatments was presented in revealed analyses. The incremental cost-utility ratios for biologics, compared with standard care, varied significantly between the studies and ranged from US$36,309 to US$456,979. The lowest value was obtained for infliximab and the highest for the treatment scheme including infliximab 5 mg/kg and infliximab 10 mg/kg + adalimumab. The change of utility weights and clinical parameters had the most significant influence on the results of the analysis; the variable related to surgery was the least sensitive. CONCLUSIONS:Limited data on the cost-effectiveness of UC therapy were identified. In the majority of studies, the lack of cost-effectiveness was revealed for biologics, which was associated with their high costs. Clinical outcomes are transferable to other countries and could be generalized; however, cost inputs are country-specific and therefore limit the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. The key drivers and variables that showed the greatest effect on the analysis results were utility weights and clinical parameters.
| S-EPMC5840213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewChronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a phenotypic designation of the broader condition of chronic rhinosinusitis. The advent of targeted biologics has shown promise in targeting different aspects of the inflammatory pathway, yet there remains a lack of consensus on the correct timing and use of these medications. This review seeks to provide a concise update of the available literature on the pathophysiology of CRSwNP, the evolution and cost utility of biologics as it pertains to management of patients with CRSwNP, and evidence for each available biologic and its use in CRSwNP.Recent findingsThere are two biologics with FDA approval for use in CRSwNP: dupilumab and omalizumab. Recent clinical trials of other biologic therapies targeting type 2 inflammatory pathways have also demonstrated efficacy both in symptom scores and nasal polyp reduction. However, studies have questioned the cost utility of these medications compared to other interventions. Furthermore, timing of use with respect to other interventions including surgery remains challenging.
| S-EPMC8285230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment for severe asthma is associated with substantial disease burden. Thus, OCS dosage reduction is desirable. Relative efficacy of biologics in reducing OCS treatment for severe, uncontrolled asthma is not fully characterized. OBJECTIVE:We performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to assess the relative effects on OCS treatment reduction of three biologic asthma treatments. METHODS:In MAIC of benralizumab vs. mepolizumab and vs. dupilumab, patient-level data from the Phase III benralizumab OCS-sparing trial, ZONDA, were weighted to match treatment effect-modifying patient characteristics in comparator trials. RESULTS:After matching adjustment, mean difference between benralizumab and mepolizumab for OCS reduction was 6.08% (95% CI -22.22-34.38; P = .67) by week 24, and odds ratio of OCS elimination was 2.32 (95% CI 0.48-11.15; P = .29). A trend in annual asthma exacerbation rate reduction favouring benralizumab over mepolizumab was observed, although it was not statistically significant (rate ratio [RR] = 0.56 [95% CI 0.28-1.13; P = .11]). Mean difference between benralizumab and dupilumab for OCS reduction was -0.71% (95% CI -20.56-19.15; P = .94), and odds ratio of OCS elimination was 2.26 (95% CI 0.52-9.84; P = .28). A non-significant trend in annual asthma exacerbation rate reduction favouring benralizumab over dupilumab was observed (RR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.20-1.28; P = .15]). Effective sample size was 49% (72 vs. 148) and 25% (36 vs. 142) of original sample size for MAIC of benralizumab vs. mepolizumab and benralizumab vs. dupilumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:Following patient baseline characteristics matching across clinical trials, benralizumab demonstrated efficacy comparable to mepolizumab and dupilumab for OCS dosage reduction, OCS elimination, and annual exacerbation rate reduction. Comparatively low effective sample sizes indicated substantial differences for patient populations between ZONDA and mepolizumab and dupilumab trials.
| S-EPMC7204869 | biostudies-literature