Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients eligible for both: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab and mepolizumab are effective biologic therapies for severe asthma. However, their comparative effectiveness in patients eligible for both treatments remains unclear in routine care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in these patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with asthma who were treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. Eligible patients had a blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL (or ≥ 300 cells/μL within the prior year), total Immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≥ 30 IU/mL, and sensitization to a perennial inhalant allergen. The primary endpoint was the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for asthma exacerbation during the first year of treatment. Secondary endpoints were IRRs for emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations, subgroup IRRs stratified by baseline eosinophil count (< 300 cells/μL vs. ≥ 300 cells/μL), and change in oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose. Poisson regression models were adjusted for BMI, eosinophil count, and prior-year exacerbations; ER and hospitalization models additionally adjusted for prior ER visits and hospitalizations. Follow-up time was accounted for via an offset term. RESULTS: We included 49 patients (omalizumab, n = 25; mepolizumab, n = 24). Mepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations compared with omalizumab (IRR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.69). In the subgroup analyses, this effect was significant in patients with baseline eosinophil counts < 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-0.88) but not in those with baseline eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.15-1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in the number of ER visits or hospitalizations. The OCS dose was reduced in both groups, with no significant between-group difference in the mean dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients eligible for both therapies, mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations more than omalizumab in real-world practice. Although ER visits, hospitalizations, and OCS-sparing were comparable, these findings may help inform biologic selection when exacerbation reduction is prioritized but require confirmation in larger multicenter studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-026-01055-9
Primary Topic
Asthma and respiratory diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients eligible for both: a retrospective cohort study

Norihiko Kubota, Kei Nakashima, Yoshihiro Funaki, Ayumu Otsuki et al.
Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology
Asthma and respiratory diseases
article

Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients eligible for both: a retrospective cohort study

Norihiko Kubota, Kei Nakashima, Yoshihiro Funaki, Ayumu Otsuki, Hiroki Matsui, Naoki Inoshima, Tatsuya Nagai
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab and mepolizumab are effective biologic therapies for severe asthma. However, their comparative effectiveness in patients eligible for both treatments remains unclear in routine care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in these patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with asthma who were treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. Eligible patients had a blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL (or ≥ 300 cells/μL within the prior year), total Immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≥ 30 IU/mL, and sensitization to a perennial inhalant allergen. The primary endpoint was the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for asthma exacerbation during the first year of treatment. Secondary endpoints were IRRs for emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations, subgroup IRRs stratified by baseline eosinophil count (< 300 cells/μL vs. ≥ 300 cells/μL), and change in oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose. Poisson regression models were adjusted for BMI, eosinophil count, and prior-year exacerbations; ER and hospitalization models additionally adjusted for prior ER visits and hospitalizations. Follow-up time was accounted for via an offset term. RESULTS: We included 49 patients (omalizumab, n = 25; mepolizumab, n = 24). Mepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations compared with omalizumab (IRR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.69). In the subgroup analyses, this effect was significant in patients with baseline eosinophil counts < 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-0.88) but not in those with baseline eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL (IRR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.15-1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in the number of ER visits or hospitalizations. The OCS dose was reduced in both groups, with no significant between-group difference in the mean dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients eligible for both therapies, mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations more than omalizumab in real-world practice. Although ER visits, hospitalizations, and OCS-sparing were comparable, these findings may help inform biologic selection when exacerbation reduction is prioritized but require confirmation in larger multicenter studies.

Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology
Kameda Medical Center (JP), University of Tokyo Health Sciences (JP), The University of Tokyo (JP)
Openalex Percentile: Top 100%
Asthma and respiratory diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.