Fevipiprant, a prostaglandin D2 receptor 2 antagonist, in patients with persistent eosinophilic asthma: a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic airway inflammation is often present in asthma, and reduction of such inflammation results in improved clinical outcomes. We hypothesised that fevipiprant (QAW039), an antagonist of prostaglandin D2 receptor 2, might reduce eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with moderate-to-severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: We performed a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial at Glenfield Hospital (Leicester, UK). We recruited patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and an elevated sputum eosinophil count (≥2%). After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the trial pharmacist, using previously generated treatment allocation cards, to receive fevipiprant (225 mg twice per day orally) or placebo, stratified by the use of oral corticosteroid treatment and bronchoscopy. The 12-week treatment period was followed by a 6-week single-blind placebo washout period. The primary outcome was the change in sputum eosinophil percentage from baseline to 12 weeks after treatment, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. All patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01545726, and with EudraCT, number 2011-004966-13. FINDINGS: Between Feb 10, 2012, and Jan 30, 2013, 61 patients were randomly assigned to receive fevipiprant (n=30) or placebo (n=31). Three patients in the fevipiprant group and four patients in the placebo group withdrew because of asthma exacerbations. Two patients in the fevipiprant group were incorrectly given placebo (one at the mid-treatment visit and one throughout the course of the study). They were both included in the fevipiprant group for the primary analysis, but the patient who was incorrectly given placebo throughout was included in the placebo group for the safety analyses. Between baseline and 12 weeks after treatment, sputum eosinophil percentage decreased from a geometric mean of 5·4% (95% CI 3·1-9·6) to 1·1% (0·7-1·9) in the fevipiprant group and from 4·6% (2·5-8·7) to 3·9% (CI 2·3-6·7) in the placebo group. Compared with baseline, mean sputum eosinophil percentage was reduced by 4·5 times in the fevipiprant group and by 1·3 times in the placebo group (difference between groups 3·5 times, 95% CI 1·7-7·0; p=0·0014). Fevipiprant had a favourable safety profile, with no deaths or serious adverse events reported. No patient withdrawals were judged by the investigator to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Fevipiprant reduces eosinophilic airway inflammation and is well tolerated in patients with persistent moderate-to-severe asthma and raised sputum eosinophil counts despite inhaled corticosteroid treatment. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AirPROM project, and the UK National Institute for Health Research.

Relationship between lung function and quantitative computed tomographic parameters of airway remodeling, air trapping, and emphysema in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A single-center study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of studies comparing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on thoracic quantitative computed tomographic (QCT) parameters. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare QCT parameters of airway remodeling, air trapping, and emphysema between asthmatic patients and patients with COPD and explore their relationship with airflow limitation. METHODS: Asthmatic patients (n = 171), patients with COPD (n = 81), and healthy subjects (n = 49) recruited from a single center underwent QCT and clinical characterization. RESULTS: Proximal airway percentage wall area (%WA) was significantly increased in asthmatic patients (62.5% [SD, 2.2]) and patients with COPD (62.7% [SD, 2.3]) compared with that in healthy control subjects (60.3% [SD, 2.2], P < .001). Air trapping measured based on mean lung density expiratory/inspiratory ratio was significantly increased in patients with COPD (mean, 0.922 [SD, 0.037]) and asthmatic patients (mean, 0.852 [SD, 0.061]) compared with that in healthy subjects (mean, 0.816 [SD, 0.066], P < .001). Emphysema assessed based on lung density measured by using Hounsfield units below which 15% of the voxels lie (Perc15) was a feature of COPD only (patients with COPD: mean, -964 [SD, 19.62] vs asthmatic patients: mean, -937 [SD, 22.7] and healthy subjects: mean, -937 [SD, 17.1], P < .001). Multiple regression analyses showed that the strongest predictor of lung function impairment in asthmatic patients was %WA, whereas in the COPD and asthma subgrouped with postbronchodilator FEV1 percent predicted value of less than 80%, it was air trapping. Factor analysis of QCT parameters in asthmatic patients and patients with COPD combined determined 3 components, with %WA, air trapping, and Perc15 values being the highest loading factors. Cluster analysis identified 3 clusters with mild, moderate, or severe lung function impairment with corresponding decreased lung density (Perc15 values) and increased air trapping. CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatic patients and patients with COPD, lung function impairment is strongly associated with air trapping, with a contribution from proximal airway narrowing in asthmatic patients.