Burden of Uncontrolled Severe Asthma With and Without Elevated Type-2 Inflammatory Biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with asthma have type-2 airway inflammation, identified by the presence of biomarkers, including history of allergy, high blood eosinophil (EOS) count, and high fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels. OBJECTIVE: To assess disease burden in relation to type-2 inflammatory biomarker status (history of allergy, blood EOS count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide level) in patients with uncontrolled and controlled severe asthma in the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY) (NCT02760329). METHODS: Asthma diagnosis and severity were physician-reported. Control was defined using Asthma Control Test score (uncontrolled <20, controlled ≥20) and/or 1 or more severe physician-reported exacerbation in the previous year. Biomarker distribution (history of allergy, blood EOS count, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide level), symptom burden (Asthma Control Test score, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score), exacerbations, and health care resource utilization were assessed. RESULTS: Of 647 patients with severe asthma, 446 had uncontrolled and 123 had controlled asthma. Among those with uncontrolled asthma, 196 (44%) had 2 or more positive biomarkers, 187 (42%) had 1 positive biomarker, 325 (73%) had low blood EOS, and 63 (14%) were triple-negative. Disease burden was similarly high across uncontrolled subgroups, irrespective of biomarker status, with poor symptom control (Asthma Control Test score 14.9-16.6), impaired health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score 46.7-49.4), clinically important breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council grade ≥2 in 47.3%-57.1%), and 1 or more severe exacerbation (70.6%-76.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Type-2 inflammatory biomarkers did not differentiate disease burden in patients with severe asthma. Patients with low type-2 inflammatory biomarker levels have few biologic therapy options; their needs should be addressed.

Symptom Burden, Health Status, and Productivity in Patients with Uncontrolled and Controlled Severe Asthma in NOVELTY.

Background: Few studies have quantified symptom burden, health status, and productivity in patients with uncontrolled and controlled severe asthma. Up-to-date, real-world, global evidence is needed. Objective: To quantify symptom burden, health status, and productivity in patients with uncontrolled and controlled severe asthma using baseline data from the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY; NCT02760329). Methods: NOVELTY included patients aged ≥18 years (or ≥12 years in some countries) from primary care and specialist centres in 19 countries, with a physician-assigned diagnosis of asthma, asthma+chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or COPD. Disease severity was physician-assessed. Uncontrolled severe asthma was defined by an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score <20 and/or severe physician-reported exacerbations in the previous year; controlled severe asthma required an ACT score ≥20 and no severe exacerbations. Assessment of symptom burden included Respiratory Symptoms Questionnaire (RSQ) and ACT score. Assessment of health status included St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index value, and EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Score (EQ-VAS). Assessment of productivity loss included absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment. Results: Of 1652 patients with severe asthma, asthma was uncontrolled in 1078 (65.3%; mean age 52.6 years, 65.8% female) and controlled in 315 (19.1%; mean age 55.2 years, 56.5% female). With uncontrolled versus controlled severe asthma, symptom burden was higher (mean RSQ score 7.7 vs 2.5), health status more impaired (mean SGRQ total score 47.5 vs 22.4; mean EQ-5D-5L index value 0.68 vs 0.90; mean EQ-VAS score 64.1 vs 78.1), and productivity lower (presenteeism 29.3% vs 10.5%). Conclusion: Our findings highlight the symptom burden of uncontrolled severe asthma compared with controlled severe asthma and its impact on patient health status and productivity, and support the need for interventions to improve control of severe asthma.

Cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab in Canada for severe asthma.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab as add-on maintenance therapy compared with standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of patients with severe asthma in Canada. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cost utility analysis was conducted using a Markov cohort model with five health states ("controlled asthma", "uncontrolled asthma", "previously controlled asthma with exacerbation", "previously uncontrolled asthma with exacerbation", and "death"). Tezepelumab plus SoC was compared to SoC (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting beta agonist) using efficacy estimates derived from the NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) and SOURCE (NCT03406078) trials. The model included the costs of therapy, administration, resource use for disease management, and adverse events. Utility estimates were calculated using a mixed-effects regression analysis of the NAVIGATOR and SOURCE trials. A Canadian public payer perspective was used with a 50-year time horizon, a 1.5% annual discount rate, and the base case analysis was conducted probabilistically. A key scenario analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab compared with currently reimbursed biologics informed by an indirect treatment comparison. RESULTS: The base case analysis suggested that tezepelumab plus SoC was associated with a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 1.077 compared with SoC alone at an incremental cost of $207,101 (2022 Canadian dollars), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $192,357/QALY. The key scenario analysis demonstrated that tezepelumab was dominant against all currently reimbursed biologics, with higher incremental QALYs (ranging from 0.062 to 0.407) and lower incremental costs (ranging from -$6,878 to -$1,974). Additionally, when compared against currently reimbursed biologics in Canada, tezepelumab had the highest probability of being cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab provided additional life years and QALYs at additional cost compared with SoC in Canada. In addition, tezepelumab dominated (i.e. more effective, less costly) the other currently reimbursed biologics.

Tezepelumab compared with other biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.

Cluster Analysis of Inflammatory Biomarker Expression in the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Allergy, eosinophilic inflammation, and epithelial dysregulation are implicated in severe asthma pathogenesis. OBJECTIVE: We characterized biomarker expression in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Within the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR), we analyzed data from 10 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia, with prespecified thresholds for biomarker positivity (serum IgE ≥ 75 kU/L, blood eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL, and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb), and with hierarchical cluster analysis using biomarkers as continuous variables. RESULTS: Of 1,175 patients; 64% were female, age (mean ± SD) 53 ± 15 years, body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 8, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) predicted 72% ± 20%. By prespecified thresholds, 59% were IgE positive, 57% eosinophil positive, and 58% FeNO positive. There was substantial inflammatory biomarker overlap; 59% were positive for either 2 or 3 biomarkers. Five distinct clusters were identified: cluster 1 (61%, low-to-medium biomarkers) comprised highly symptomatic, older females with elevated BMI and frequent exacerbations; cluster 2 (18%, elevated eosinophils and FeNO) older females with lower BMI and frequent exacerbations; cluster 3 (14%, extremely high FeNO) older, highly symptomatic, lower BMI, and preserved lung function; cluster 4 (6%, extremely high IgE) younger, long duration of asthma, elevated BMI, and poor lung function; cluster 5 (1.2%, extremely high eosinophils) younger males with low BMI, poor lung function, and high burden of sinonasal disease and polyposis. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant overlap of biomarker positivity in severe asthma. Distinct clusters according to biomarker expression exhibit unique clinical characteristics, suggesting the occurrence of discrete patterns of underlying inflammatory pathway activation and providing pathogenic insights relevant to the era of monoclonal biologics.