Novel asthma treatments: Advancing Beyond Approved Novel Step-Up Therapies for Asthma.

Over the past two decades, the management of severe asthma has shifted from relying on inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators to more precise, targeted approaches. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) designed to address specific molecular pathways in asthma have transformed care for patients with severe asthma. Since therapy targeting immunoglobulin E (IgE) became the first biologic developed for allergic asthma in 2003, monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-5 receptor, IL-4/13 receptor, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) have been approved for treating difficult-to-treat asthma, improving symptoms, reducing exacerbations, and reducing oral corticosteroid dosing. Despite these advances, many patients continue to experience asthma exacerbations and symptoms, and fail to achieve remission. To address this, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are exploring novel therapies targeting different aspects of asthma pathophysiology, including cytokines, enzymes, and cellular pathways. Innovative treatments like inhaled biologics, ultra-long-acting biologics, and combination biologics are in development. New molecular targets, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK), Ox40 ligand, and Janus kinase (JAK), offer promise for addressing unmet needs in asthma care. While many therapies have failed to get approval for use due to lack of efficacy, trial design, or toxicity, these experiments still provide insights into asthma's underlying mechanisms. The future of asthma management looks promising, with emerging therapies aiming to improve patient outcomes. The challenge will lie in identifying the right therapy for each patient and developing personalized treatment strategies.

Research Priorities in Pediatric Asthma Morbidity: Addressing the Impacts of Systemic Racism on Children with Asthma in the United States. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Background: In the United States, Black and Latino children with asthma are more likely than White children with asthma to require emergency department visits or hospitalizations because of an asthma exacerbation. Although many cite patient-level socioeconomic status and access to health care as primary drivers of disparities, there is an emerging focus on a major root cause of disparities-systemic racism. Current conceptual models of asthma disparities depict the historical and current effects of systemic racism as the foundation for unequal exposures to social determinants of health, environmental exposures, epigenetic factors, and differential healthcare access and quality. These ultimately lead to biologic changes over the life course resulting in asthma morbidity and mortality. Methods: At the 2022 American Thoracic Society International Conference, a diverse panel of experts was assembled to identify gaps and opportunities to address systemic racism in childhood asthma research. Panelists found that to examine and address the impacts of systemic racism on children with asthma, researchers and medical systems that support biomedical research will need to 1) address the current gaps in our understanding of how to conceptualize and characterize the impacts of systemic racism on child health, 2) design research studies that leverage diverse disciplines and engage the communities affected by systemic racism in identifying and designing studies to evaluate interventions that address the racialized system that contributes to disparities in asthma health outcomes, and 3) address funding mechanisms and institutional research practices that will be needed to promote antiracism practices in research and its dissemination. Results: A thorough literature review and expert opinion discussion demonstrated that there are few studies in childhood asthma that identify systemic racism as a root cause of many of the disparities seen in children with asthma. Community engagement and participation in research studies is essential to design interventions to address the racialized system in which patients and families live. Dissemination and implementation studies with an equity lens will provide the multilevel evaluations required to understand the impacts of interventions to address systemic racism and the downstream impacts. To address the impacts of systemic racism and childhood asthma, there needs to be increased training for research teams, funding for studies addressing research that evaluates the impacts of racism, funding for diverse and multidisciplinary research teams including community members, and institutional and financial support of advocating for policy changes based on study findings. Conclusions: Innovative study design, new tools to identify the impacts of systemic racism, community engagement, and improved infrastructure and funding are all needed to support research that will address impacts of systemic racism on childhood asthma outcomes.

Targeting the IL-5 pathway in eosinophilic asthma: A comparison of anti-IL-5 versus anti-IL-5 receptor agents.

Eosinophilic asthma is characterized by frequent exacerbations, poor symptom control and accelerated lung function decline. It is now recognized that the immune response underlying eosinophilic asthma involves a complex network of interconnected pathways from both the adaptive and innate immune systems. Within this response, interleukin-5 (IL-5) plays a central role in eosinophil differentiation, activation and survival and has emerged as a key target for therapies treating severe asthma. The monoclonal antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab target the ligand IL-5, preventing its interaction with eosinophils; in contrast, benralizumab binds to the IL-5 receptor (IL-5R), preventing IL-5 from binding and leading to substantially greater eosinophil reduction by enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Although no direct head-to-head clinical trials of asthma have been published to formally evaluate the clinical significance of these different therapeutic approaches, the potential benefits of partial versus complete eosinophil depletion continue to remain an important area of study and debate. Here, we review the existing real-world and clinical study data of anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5R therapies in severe eosinophilic asthma.

Choosing the Right Biologic for the Right Patient With Severe Asthma.

In this instalment of the How I Do It series on severe asthma, we tackle the clinical conundrum of choosing the right biologic for the right patient with severe asthma. With 6 biologics now approved for use in this area comprising 4 different targeting strategies (anti-Ig E: omalizumab; anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5-receptor: mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab; anti-IL-4-receptor: dupilumab; anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin: tezepelumab), this question is increasingly complex. Recognizing that no head-to-head trial has compared biologics, we based our review on the expected effects of inhibiting different aspects of type 2 airway inflammation, supported whenever possible by clinical trial and real-world data. We use 4 variations of a case of severe uncontrolled asthma to develop concepts and considerations introduced in the previous installment ("Workup of Severe Asthma") and discuss pregnancy-related, biomarker-related, comorbidity-related, and corticosteroid dependency-related considerations when choosing a biologic. The related questions of deciding when, why, and how to switch from one biologic to another also are discussed. Overall, we consider that the choice of biologics should be based on the available clinical trial data for the desired efficacy outcomes, the biomarker profile of the patient, safety profiles (eg, when pregnancy is considered), and opportunities to target 2 comorbidities with 1 biologic. Using systemic and airway biomarkers (blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide) and other phenotypic characteristics, we suggest a framework to facilitate therapeutic decision-making. Post hoc studies and new comparative studies are needed urgently to test this framework and to determine whether it allows us to make other clinically useful predictions.

Clinical response and on-treatment clinical remission with tezepelumab in a broad population of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: results over 2 years from the NAVIGATOR and DESTINATION studies.

BACKGROUND: In asthma, clinical response is characterized by disease improvement with treatment, whereas clinical remission is characterized by long-term disease stabilization with or without ongoing treatment. The proportion of patients receiving tezepelumab who responded to treatment and those who achieved on-treatment clinical remission was assessed in the NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) and DESTINATION (NCT03706079) studies of severe, uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: NAVIGATOR and DESTINATION were phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies; DESTINATION was an extension of NAVIGATOR. Complete clinical response was defined as achieving all of the following: ≥50% reduction in exacerbations versus the previous year, improvements in pre-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥100 mL or ≥5%, improvements in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-6 score of ≥0.5 and physicians' assessment of asthma improvement. On-treatment clinical remission was defined as an ACQ-6 total score ≤1.5, stable lung function (pre-BD FEV1 >95% of baseline) and no exacerbations or use of oral corticosteroids during the time periods assessed. RESULTS: Higher proportions of tezepelumab than placebo recipients achieved complete clinical response over weeks 0-52 (46% versus 24%; OR: 2.83 [95% CI: 2.10-3.82]), and on-treatment clinical remission over weeks 0-52 (28.5% versus 21.9%; OR: 1.44 [95% CI: 0.95-2.19]) and weeks >52-104 (33.5% versus 26.7%; OR: 1.44 [95% CI: 0.97-2.14]). Tezepelumab recipients who achieved on-treatment clinical remission versus complete clinical response at week 52 had better preserved lung function and lower inflammatory biomarkers at baseline, and fewer exacerbations in the 12 months before the study. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, tezepelumab treatment was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving complete clinical response and on-treatment clinical remission compared with placebo. Both are clinically important outcomes but may be driven by different patient characteristics.

What every clinician should know about inflammation in COPD.

Inflammation drives COPD pathogenesis and exacerbations. Although the conceptual framework and major players in the inflammatory milieu of COPD have been long established, the nuances of cellular interactions and the etiological differences that create heterogeneity in inflammatory profiles and treatment response continue to be revealed. This wealth of data and understanding is not only a boon to the researcher but also provides guidance to the clinician, moving the field closer to precision medicine. It is through this lens that this review seeks to describe the inflammatory processes at play in COPD, relating inflammation to pathological and functional changes, identifying patient-specific and disease-related factors that may influence clinical observations, and providing current insights on existing and emerging anti-inflammatory treatments and treatment targets, including biological therapies and phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors.

Twice-Yearly Depemokimab in Severe Asthma with an Eosinophilic Phenotype.

BACKGROUND: Depemokimab is an ultra-long-acting biologic therapy with enhanced binding affinity for interleukin-5 that may enable effective 6-month dosing intervals. METHODS: In these phase 3A, randomized, placebo-controlled replicate trials, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of depemokimab in patients with severe asthma and an eosinophilic phenotype characterized by a high eosinophil count (≥300 cells per microliter in the previous 12 months or ≥150 cells per microliter at screening) and a history of exacerbations despite the receipt of medium- or high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either depemokimab (at a dose of 100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo at weeks 0 and 26, plus standard care. The primary end point was the annualized rate of exacerbations at 52 weeks. Secondary end points, which were analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the change from baseline in the score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and asthma symptom reports at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Across the two trials, 792 patients underwent randomization and 762 were included in the full analysis; 502 were assigned to receive depemokimab and 260 to receive placebo. The annualized rate of exacerbations was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI]), 0.36 to 0.58) with depemokimab and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.43) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001) in SWIFT-1 and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70) with depemokimab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.41) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.73; P<0.001) in SWIFT-2. No significant between-group difference in the change from baseline in the SGRQ score was observed in either trial, so no statistical inference was drawn on subsequent secondary end points. The proportion of patients with any adverse event was similar in the two groups in both trials. CONCLUSIONS: Depemokimab reduced the annualized rate of exacerbations among patients with severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype. (Funded by GSK; SWIFT-1 and SWIFT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04719832 and NCT04718103.).

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Patients with Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma Across Multiple Clinically Relevant Subgroups in the NAVIGATOR Study.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with severe asthma continue to experience symptoms and exacerbations despite treatment with standard-of-care therapy. In the phase 3 NAVIGATOR study, tezepelumab significantly reduced exacerbations over 52 weeks compared with placebo in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. This analysis assessed the efficacy of tezepelumab in reducing asthma exacerbations in various clinically relevant subgroups of patients in NAVIGATOR. METHODS: NAVIGATOR was a phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Participants (12-80 years old) with severe, uncontrolled asthma were randomized 1:1 to receive tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Pre-specified and post hoc analyses were performed to evaluate the annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) over 52 weeks in clinically relevant subgroups of patients defined by baseline patient characteristics, medical history, exacerbation triggers, medication eligibility and medication use before and during the study. RESULTS: Tezepelumab reduced the AAER over 52 weeks compared with placebo across a wide range of patient subgroups assessed. Reductions in exacerbations were similar across subgroups defined by baseline patient characteristics, ranging from 48% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21, 65) to 60% (95% CI: 44, 71) in subgroups analysed by sex, smoking history and body mass index. Among the asthma-related comorbidity subgroups investigated, patients with aspirin or NSAID sensitivity had the greatest reductions in AAER with tezepelumab compared with placebo (83%; 95% CI: 66, 91). In patients eligible to receive dupilumab, tezepelumab reduced exacerbations compared with placebo by 64% (95% CI: 54, 71). Reductions in the AAER with tezepelumab compared with placebo were also observed irrespective of exacerbation trigger category and the number of asthma controller medications patients were receiving at baseline. CONCLUSION: These findings further support the benefits of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and can help to inform healthcare providers' treatment decisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279).

Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma.

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials. Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life. Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers. Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE. Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Biomarkers and clinical outcomes after tezepelumab cessation: Extended follow-up from the 2-year DESTINATION study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term tezepelumab treatment in the DESTINATION study (NCT03706079) resulted in reduced asthma exacerbations, reduced biomarker levels, and improved lung function and symptom control in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. OBJECTIVE: To explore the time course of changes in biomarkers and clinical manifestations after treatment cessation after 2 years of tezepelumab treatment. METHODS: DESTINATION was a 2-year, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of tezepelumab treatment in patients (12-80 years old) with severe asthma. Patients received their last treatment doses at week 100 and could enroll in an extended follow-up period from weeks 104 to 140. Change over time in key biomarkers and clinical outcomes were assessed in tezepelumab vs placebo recipients for 40 weeks after stopping treatment. RESULTS: Of 569 patients enrolled in the extended follow-up period, 426 were included in the analysis (289 received tezepelumab and 137 placebo). In the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose, blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 scores gradually increased from weeks 4 to 10, with a gradual reduction in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second such that blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and clinical outcomes returned to placebo levels; however, none of these outcomes returned to baseline levels. Total IgE levels increased later from week 28 and remained well below placebo and baseline levels during the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose. CONCLUSION: This analysis reveals the benefits of continued tezepelumab treatment in the management of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, compared with stopping treatment after 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03706079.

Ophthalmic vascular manifestations in eosinophil-associated diseases: a comprehensive analysis of 57 patients from the CEREO and EESG networks and a literature review.

Introduction: Eosinophils have widespread procoagulant effects. In daily practice, eosinophil-related cardiovascular toxicity consists of endomyocardial damage, eosinophilic vasculitis and arterial or venous thrombosis. Here we aim to report on the clinical features and treatment outcomes of patients with unexplained ophthalmic vascular manifestations and eosinophilia. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, observational study and a literature review of patients with eosinophilia (≥0.5 x109/L) and concomitant ophthalmic vascular manifestations independent of the underlying eosinophilic disease but with no alternative cause for ophthalmic manifestations. Results: Fifty-seven patients were included (20 from the observational study and 37 from the literature review). Ophthalmic vascular features were the initial manifestation of eosinophil-related disease in 34 (59%) patients and consisted of 29 central retinal artery occlusions, six branch retinal artery occlusions, five central retinal vein occlusions, two branch retinal vein occlusions, seven retinal vasculitides, two retinal vasospasms, 12 Purtscher's retinopathies, 13 anterior ischemic optic neuropathies and two posterior ischemic optic neuropathies. The median [IQR] absolute eosinophil count at onset of ophthalmic vascular manifestations was 3.5 [1.7-7.8] x109/L. Underlying eosinophil-related diseases included eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n=32), clonal hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) (n=1), idiopathic HES (n=13), lymphocytic HES (n=2), adverse drug reactions (n=3), parasitosis (n=2), polyarteritis nodosa (n=1), IgG4-related disease (n=1), eosinophilic fasciitis (n=1) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (n=1). Other extra-ophthalmologic arterial or venous thromboses related to eosinophilia were reported in four (7%) and nine (16%) patients, respectively. Visual prognosis was poor: only eight (10%) patients achieved full recovery of ophthalmologic symptoms. After a median follow-up of 10.5 [1-18] months, one patient (3%) had a recurrence of an ophthalmic vascular manifestation, and three patients (10%) had a recurrence of other vascular symptoms (deep vein thrombosis in two and pulmonary embolism in one patient). At the time of recurrence, absolute eosinophil counts were above 0.5 x109/L in all cases (n=4). Discussion: This study broadens the spectrum of vascular manifestations associated with hypereosinophilia by adding ophthalmic vascular manifestations. In patients with ophthalmological vascular manifestations and hypereosinophilia, aggressive treatment of the underlying pathology (and normalization of blood count) should be implemented.

The impact of insomnia and depression on asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Poor sleep quality is often reported by individuals with asthma, particularly by those who have poor asthma control overall. However, there is little understanding of how underlying sleep disorders such as insomnia may impact asthma control. Furthermore, given the frequent overlap of depression and insomnia, the incremental impact of mood disorders and insomnia on asthma control remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients at a large asthma center to further elucidate connections between these disease processes. Asthma patients with and without a diagnosis of insomnia were matched by age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and biologic therapy. We evaluated the presence of concurrent obstructive sleep disorder, mood disorders, exacerbation frequency, and asthma control test (ACT) scores. RESULTS: From a cohort of 659 patients with an asthma diagnosis, 89 subjects with insomnia (13.5%) were matched 1:1 to patients without insomnia. Compared to those without insomnia, patients with insomnia were more likely to have a concurrent diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (57.3% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) and to have a diagnosis of depression or anxiety (68.5% vs. 11.4%, p < 0.001). Among insomnia patients, there was an average of 0.93 asthma exacerbations per year, compared to 0.59 exacerbations per year for those without insomnia (p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Our data reveal a considerable interaction between insomnia, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea in individuals with asthma. The increased exacerbation rate suggests that underlying sleep and mood disorders negatively affect asthma control.

Biologic therapy in rare eosinophil-associated disorders: remaining questions and translational research opportunities.

Rare eosinophil-associated disorders (EADs), including hypereosinophilic syndrome, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, are a heterogeneous group of conditions characterized by blood and/or tissue hypereosinophilia and eosinophil-related clinical manifestations. Although the recent availability of biologic therapies that directly and indirectly target eosinophils has the potential to dramatically improve treatment options for all EADs, clinical trials addressing their safety and efficacy in rare EADs have been relatively few. Consequently, patient access to therapy is limited for many biologics, and the establishment of evidence-based treatment guidelines has been extremely difficult. In this regard, multicenter retrospective collaborative studies focusing on disease manifestations and treatment responses in rare EADs have provided invaluable data for physicians managing patients with these conditions and helped identify important questions for future translational research. During the Clinical Pre-Meeting Workshop held in association with the July 2023 biennial meeting of the International Eosinophil Society in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the successes and limitations of pivotal multicenter retrospective studies in EADs were summarized and unmet needs regarding the establishment of guidelines for use of biologics in rare EADs were discussed. Key topics of interest included (1) clinical outcome measures, (2) minimally invasive biomarkers of disease activity, (3) predictors of response to biologic agents, and (4) long-term safety of eosinophil depletion. Herein, we report a summary of these discussions, presenting a state-of-the-art overview of data currently available for each of these topics, the limitations of the data, and avenues for future data generation through implementation of multidisciplinary and multicenter studies.

Benralizumab versus Mepolizumab for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a vasculitis characterized by eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5α receptor expressed on eosinophils, may be an option for treating EGPA. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3, randomized, active-controlled noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as compared with mepolizumab. Adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA who were receiving standard care were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive benralizumab (30 mg) or mepolizumab (300 mg) subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at weeks 36 and 48 (prespecified noninferiority margin, -25 percentage points). Secondary end points included the accrued duration of remission, time to first relapse, oral glucocorticoid use, eosinophil count, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients underwent randomization (70 assigned to each group). The adjusted percentage of patients with remission at weeks 36 and 48 was 59% in the benralizumab group and 56% in the mepolizumab group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 18; P = 0.73 for superiority), showing noninferiority but not superiority of benralizumab to mepolizumab. The accrued duration of remission and the time to first relapse were similar in the two groups. Complete withdrawal of oral glucocorticoids during weeks 48 through 52 was achieved in 41% of the patients who received benralizumab and 26% of those who received mepolizumab. The mean (±SD) blood eosinophil count at baseline was 306.0±225.0 per microliter in the benralizumab group and 384.9±563.6 per microliter in the mepolizumab group, decreasing to 32.4±40.8 and 71.8±54.4 per microliter, respectively, at week 52. Adverse events were reported in 90% of the patients in the benralizumab group and 96% of those in the mepolizumab group; serious adverse events were reported in 6% and 13%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab was noninferior to mepolizumab for the induction of remission in patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MANDARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04157348.).

International Variation in Severe Exacerbation Rates in Patients With Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exacerbation frequency strongly influences treatment choices in patients with severe asthma. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the extent of the variability of exacerbation rate across countries and its implications in disease management? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrieved data from the International Severe Asthma Registry, an international observational cohort of patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma. We identified patients aged ≥ 18 years who did not initiate any biologics prior to baseline visit. A severe exacerbation was defined as the use of oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or asthma-related hospitalization/ED visit. A series of negative binomial models were applied to estimate country-specific severe exacerbation rates during 365 days of follow-up, starting from a naive model with country as the only variable to an adjusted model with country as a random-effect term and patient and disease characteristics as independent variables. RESULTS: The final sample included 7,510 patients from 17 countries (56% from the United States), contributing to 1,939 severe exacerbations (0.27/person-year). There was large between-country variation in observed severe exacerbation rate (minimum, 0.04 [Argentina]; maximum, 0.88 [Saudi Arabia]; interquartile range, 0.13-0.54), which remained substantial after adjusting for patient characteristics and sampling variability (interquartile range, 0.16-0.39). INTERPRETATION: Individuals with similar patient characteristics but coming from different jurisdictions have varied severe exacerbation risks, even after controlling for patient and disease characteristics. This suggests unknown patient factors or system-level variations at play. Disease management guidelines should recognize such between-country variability. Risk prediction models that are calibrated for each jurisdiction will be needed to optimize treatment strategies.

Baseline Characteristics and ICS/LAMA/LABA Response in Asthma: Analyses From the CAPTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from CAPTAIN (NCT02924688) suggest that treatment response to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) differs according to baseline type 2 inflammation markers in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Understanding how other patient physiologic and clinical characteristics affect response to inhaled therapies may guide physicians toward a personalized approach for asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate, using CAPTAIN data, the predictive value of key demographic and baseline physiologic variables in patients with asthma (lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age, age at asthma onset) on response to addition of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist UMEC to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination FF/VI, or doubling the FF dose. METHODS: Prespecified and post hoc analyses of CAPTAIN data were performed using categorical and continuous variables of key baseline characteristics to understand their influence on treatment outcomes (lung function [trough FEV1], annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, and asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire]) following addition of UMEC to FF/VI or doubling the FF dose in FF/VI or FF/UMEC/VI. RESULTS: Adding UMEC to FF/VI led to greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus doubling the FF dose across all baseline characteristics assessed. Doubling the FF dose was generally associated with numerically greater reductions in the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations compared with adding UMEC, independent of baseline characteristics. Adding UMEC and/or doubling the FF dose generally led to improvements in Asthma Control Questionnaire scores irrespective of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous findings with type 2 biomarkers, lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age and age at asthma onset do not appear to predict response to inhaled therapy.

Mepolizumab has clinical benefits including oral corticosteroid sparing irrespective of baseline EGPA characteristics.

Background: The Mepolizumab in Relapsing or Refractory EGPA (MIRRA) trial (GSK ID: 115921/NCT02020889) demonstrated that mepolizumab increased remission time and reduced oral corticosteroid (OCS) use compared with placebo in patients with relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). The present analysis investigated the impact of baseline characteristics on clinical outcomes and characterised the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab. Methods: In a phase 3, randomised controlled trial for patients with EGPA (MIRRA), patients received standard of care plus mepolizumab 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The accrued duration of remission, the proportion of patients in remission at weeks 36 and 48, and the proportion of patients with clinical benefit (remission, OCS or relapse-related) were assessed according to baseline EGPA characteristic subgroups (post hoc). Mepolizumab-related OCS-sparing benefits were also quantified. Results: Accrued duration of remission and the proportion of patients in remission at weeks 36 and 48 were greater with mepolizumab than placebo across the baseline subgroups of refractory disease, immunosuppressant use, EGPA duration, relapse number and OCS use ≤20 mg·day-1. The proportion of patients with clinical benefit was greater with mepolizumab versus placebo (range 76-81% versus 25-39%), irrespective of immunosuppressant use or EGPA duration. Patients treated with mepolizumab versus placebo accrued significantly more weeks on OCS ≤4 mg·day-1 (OR 5.06, 95% CI 2.47-10.38) and had a mean of 1423.1 mg less per-patient OCS exposure over 52 weeks. Conclusions: Mepolizumab treatment provided benefits to patients with EGPA across varying baseline clinical characteristics and can be considered an OCS-sparing treatment in EGPA.

Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma.

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.