Reduction of daily maintenance inhaled corticosteroids in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (SHAMAL): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: Stepwise intensification of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is routine for severe eosinophilic asthma, despite some poor responses to high-dose ICS. Dose reductions are recommended in patients responding to biologics, but little supporting safety evidence exists. METHODS: SHAMAL was a phase 4, randomised, open-label, active-controlled study done at 22 study sites in four countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma and a five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire score below 1·5 and who received at least three consecutive doses of benralizumab before screening. We randomly assigned patients (3:1) to taper their high-dose ICS to a medium-dose, low-dose, and as-needed dose (reduction group) or continue (reference group) their ICS-formoterol therapy for 32 weeks, followed by a 16-week maintenance period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reducing their ICS-formoterol dose by week 32. The primary outcome was assessed in the reduction group, and safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients receiving study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04159519. FINDINGS: Between Nov 12, 2019, and Feb 16, 2023, we screened and enrolled in the run-in period 208 patients. We randomly assigned 168 (81%) to the reduction (n=125 [74%]) and reference arms (n=43 [26%]). Overall, 110 (92%) patients reduced their ICS-formoterol dose: 18 (15%) to medium-dose, 20 (17%) to low-dose, and 72 (61%) to as-needed only. In 113 (96%) patients, reductions were maintained to week 48; 114 (91%) of patients in the reduction group had zero exacerbations during tapering. Rates of adverse events were similar between groups. 91 (73%) patients had adverse events in the reduction group and 35 (83%) in the reference group. 17 patients had serious adverse events in the study: 12 (10%) in the reduction group and five (12%) in the reference group. No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: These findings show that patients controlled on benralizumab can have meaningful reductions in ICS therapy while maintaining asthma control. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Tezepelumab in patients with allergic and eosinophilic asthma.

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease commonly driven by allergic and/or eosinophilic inflammation, both of which may be present in severe disease. Most approved biologics for severe asthma are indicated for specific phenotypes and target individual downstream type 2 components of the inflammatory cascade. Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody (immunoglobulin G2λ), binds specifically to thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), an epithelial cytokine that initiates and sustains allergic and eosinophilic inflammation in asthma. By blocking TSLP, tezepelumab has demonstrated efficacy across known asthma phenotypes and acts upstream of all current clinically used biomarkers. In a pooled analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY (NCT02054130) and phase 3 NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) studies, compared with placebo, tezepelumab reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks by 62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53, 70) in patients with perennial aeroallergen sensitization (allergic asthma); by 71% (95% CI: 62, 78) in patients with a baseline blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/µL; and by 71% (95% CI: 59, 79) in patients with allergic asthma and a baseline blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/µL. This review examines the efficacy and mode of action of tezepelumab in patients with allergic asthma, eosinophilic asthma and coexisting allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes.

Real-World Characteristics of Patients with Severe Asthma prior to Starting Dupilumab: The ProVENT Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab is approved for the treatment of severe type 2 (T2) asthma; however, the characteristics of patients receiving dupilumab in routine clinical practice are incompletely understood. This study describes the characteristics of patients with severe asthma before dupilumab treatment in a real-world setting. METHODS: This interim analysis of an ongoing real-life study of dupilumab assessed baseline characteristics of the first patient cohort enrolled in the ProVENT study. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients (59% females) were analyzed (17% received another biologic before dupilumab treatment and 15% were on maintenance oral corticosteroid treatment). Adult-onset asthma (>18 years) and an allergic phenotype were documented in 58% and 48% of patients, respectively. Median (interquartile range) age was 54 (40-61) years; the median number of exacerbations in the last 24 months was 1 (0-3); median fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) value was 38 (23-64) ppb; and median blood eosinophils (bEOS) count was 184 (8-505) cells/µL. According to the United Kingdom Severe Asthma Registry classification, 53% of patients had T2 intermediate asthma (bEOS ≥150 cells/µL or FeNO ≥25 ppb), 17% had T2 high asthma (bEOS ≥150 cells/µL and FeNO ≥25 ppb), and 4% had T2 low asthma (bEOS <150 cells/µL and FeNO <25 ppb). At least one GINA criterion for T2 airway inflammation was documented in 70% of patients. T2 comorbidities were observed in 64% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that patients eligible for dupilumab treatment display various clinical and biochemical characteristics rather than one clear-cut phenotype.

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma: Pooled Analysis of the PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR Clinical Trials.

Rationale: Tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma across a range of baseline blood eosinophil counts and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and irrespective of allergy status, in the phase 2b PATHWAY (Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of MEDI9929 [AMG 157] in Adult Subjects With Inadequately Controlled, Severe Asthma; NCT02054130) and phase 3 NAVIGATOR (Study to Evaluate Tezepelumab in Adults & Adolescents With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma; NCT03347279) trials. Objectives: To examine the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in additional clinically relevant subgroups using pooled data from PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR. Methods: PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with similar designs. This pooled analysis included patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma (PATHWAY, 18-75 years old; NAVIGATOR, 12-80 years old) who received tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The annualized asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks and secondary outcomes were calculated in the overall population and in subgroups defined by inflammatory biomarker levels or clinical characteristics. Measurements and Main Results: Overall, 1,334 patients were included (tezepelumab, n = 665; placebo, n = 669). Tezepelumab reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo by 60% (rate ratio, 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.48]) in the overall population, and clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations were observed in tezepelumab-treated patients with type 2-high and type 2-low disease by multiple definitions. Tezepelumab reduced exacerbation-related hospitalization or emergency department visits and improved secondary outcomes compared with placebo overall and across subgroups. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Tezepelumab resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations and improvements in other outcomes in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, across clinically relevant subgroups. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02054130 [PATHWAY], NCT03347279 [NAVIGATOR]).

Inhaled anti-TSLP antibody fragment, ecleralimab, blocks responses to allergen in mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is a key upstream regulator driving allergic inflammatory responses. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ecleralimab, a potent inhaled neutralising antibody fragment against human TSLP, using allergen inhalation challenge (AIC) in subjects with mild atopic asthma. METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, multicentre allergen bronchoprovocation study conducted at 10 centres across Canada and Germany. Subjects aged 18-60 years with stable mild atopic asthma were randomised (1:1) to receive 4 mg once-daily inhaled ecleralimab or placebo. Primary end-points were the allergen-induced change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) during the late asthmatic response (LAR) measured by area under the curve (AUC3-7h) and maximum percentage decrease (LAR%) on day 84, and the safety of ecleralimab. Allergen-induced early asthmatic response (EAR), sputum eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F ENO) were secondary and exploratory end-points. RESULTS: 28 subjects were randomised to ecleralimab (n=15) or placebo (n=13). On day 84, ecleralimab significantly attenuated LAR AUC3-7h by 64% (p=0.008), LAR% by 48% (p=0.029), and allergen-induced sputum eosinophils by 64% at 7 h (p=0.011) and by 52% at 24 h (p=0.047) post-challenge. Ecleralimab also numerically reduced EAR AUC0-2h (p=0.097) and EAR% (p=0.105). F ENO levels were significantly reduced from baseline throughout the study (p<0.05), except at 24 h post-allergen (day 43 and day 85). Overall, ecleralimab was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Ecleralimab significantly attenuated allergen-induced bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation, and was safe in subjects with mild atopic asthma.

Impact of short-term pausing of oral corticosteroids on blood eosinophil count in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: The peripheral blood eosinophil count (BEC) is a well-established and easily accessible biomarker for asthma patients and crucial for the therapeutic decision regarding monoclonal antibody (mAB) therapy. Oral corticosteroid therapy frequently hinders the correct evaluation of BEC in patients with severe asthma, but a discontinuation of such therapy frequently comes along with severe side effects. Therefore, we examined the effect of a short 24-hour pause of OCS treatment on BEC in patients with severe asthma and followed-up whether patients with a then increased eosinophil count benefited from mAB-therapy, as expected. METHODS: In this multicentre study we retrospectively included 24 patients with severe asthma and OCS therapy and determined their BEC count. Ten patients, where BEC count was obtained in the morning before taking medication (a de-facto 24-hour OCS pause), were assigned to group 1. Fourteen patients, where BEC was obtained after OCS tapering were assigned to group 2. Those who then received mAB treatment were followed up for treatment response (OCS dose, annual acute exacerbations, increase in forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] and asthma control test [ACT]) after ≥3 months. RESULTS: We included 24 patients with a median age of 60.5 [IQR: 17.3] years. Regarding all baseline characteristics except FEV1 (l), both groups did not differ significantly.Among all 24 patients, after pausing OCS therapy for 2 [5.5] days the BEC increased significantly from 125.0/µl [125] to 300/µl [232.5] (p<0.001). In both individual groups BEC increased significantly as well (150 [123] to 325 [305], p=0.005 and 70 [150] to 280 [255], p<0.001), with no significant difference for increase (BEC +170/µl [205.0] vs. +195 [222.5], p=0.886). Of all 24 patients, 13 (54.2%) reached eosinophil levels ≥300/µl, while 12 of them had not exceeded this threshold before.Subsequently, 20 patients (83.3%) received mAB-therapy with 55.5% demonstrating a good treatment response within 6 [1.5] months. The response rate in patients with BEC count ≥300/µl was even higher (75.0%). There was no difference in the treatment response rate between group 1 and 2 (p=0.092). CONCLUSION: After just a short 24-hour pause of OCS therapy it was possible to demask a relevant eosinophilia in asthma patients, without risking severe side effects. In this manner, we enabled the possibility of achieving successful targeted mAB-therapy, according to the patient's individual asthma phenotype.

[Criteria for evaluation of response to biologics in severe asthma - the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS)]. / Kriterien zur Evaluation des Ansprechens auf Biologika bei schwerem Asthma ­ der Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (biologics) has revolutionized the therapy of severe asthma. Even though there is a response in the majority of patients, the degree of response varies. To date criteria for assessment of response to biologics are not consistently defined. AIM: To define criteria for evaluation of response to biologics that are precise, simple and suitable for daily use in order to guide decision-making regarding continuation, switching or stopping of biological therapy. METHODS: 8 physicians with large experience in this indication, supported by a data-scientist, developed a consensus on criteria to evaluate response to biologics in patients with severe asthma. RESULT: We developed a combined score based on current literature, own experience and practicability. It uses the main criteria exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and asthma control (asthma control test, ACT). We defined thresholds for "good response", "response" and "insufficient response" rated with a score of "2", "1" and "0" respectively: annual exacerbations ("0 or reduction ≥ 75 %", reduction 50-74 %", "reductio  < 50 %"), daily OCS dose ("stopping or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reduction < 50 %"), asthma control (ACT increase ≥ 6 or ≥ 3 with result ≥ 20", "ACT increase 3-5 with result < 20", "ACT increase < 3"). Additional individual criteria like lung function and comorbidities may be important for evaluation of response. We propose 3, 6 and 12 months timepoint for assessment of tolerability and response. Using the combined score, we developed a scheme to guide the decision whether switching the biologic should be considered. CONCLUSION: The Biologic Asthma Response Score (BARS) serves as objective and simple tool to evaluate response to biologic therapy using the three main criteria exacerbations, OCS use and asthma control. A validation of the score was initiated.

Criteria for evaluation of response to biologics in severe asthma - the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (biologics) has revolutionized the therapy of severe asthma. Even though there is a response in the majority of patients, the degree of response varies. To date criteria for assessment of response to biologics are not consistently defined. AIM: To define criteria for evaluation of response to biologics that are precise, simple and suitable for daily use in order to guide decision-making regarding continuation, switching or stopping of biological therapy. METHODS: 8 physicians with large experience in this indication, supported by a data-scientist, developed a consensus on criteria to evaluate response to biologics in patients with severe asthma. RESULT: We developed a combined score based on current literature, own experience and practicability. It uses the main criteria exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and asthma control (asthma control test, ACT). We defined thresholds for "good response", "response" and "insufficient response" rated with a score of "2", "1" and "0" respectively: annual exacerbations ("0 or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reductio < 50 %"), daily OCS dose ("stopping or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reduction < 50 %"), asthma control ("ACT increase ≥ 6 or ≥ 3 with result ≥ 20", "ACT increase 3-5 with result < 20", "ACT increase < 3"). Additional individual criteria like lung function and comorbidities may be important for evaluation of response. We propose 3, 6 and 12 months timepoint for assessment of tolerability and response. Using the combined score, we developed a scheme to guide the decision whether switching the biologic should be considered. CONCLUSION: The Biologic Asthma Response Score (BARS) serves as objective and simple tool to evaluate response to biologic therapy using the three main criteria exacerbations, OCS use and asthma control. A validation of the score was initiated.

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.] / S2k-Leitlinie zur fachärztlichen Diagnostik und Therapie von Asthma 2023.

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

Development of methodology for assessing steroid-tapering in clinical trials for biologics in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) is associated with a risk of adverse events and comorbidities. As such, a goal in assessing the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma is often to monitor reduction in OCS usage. Importantly, however, OCS dose reductions must be conducted without loss of disease control. MAIN BODY: Herein, we describe the development of OCS-sparing study methodologies for biologic therapies in patients with asthma. In particular, we focus on four randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of varying sizes (key single-center study [n = 20], SIRIUS [n = 135], ZONDA [n = 220], VENTURE [n = 210]) and one open-label study (PONENTE [n = 598]), which assessed the effect of asthma biologics (mepolizumab, benralizumab or dupilumab) on OCS use using predefined OCS-tapering schedules. In particular, we discuss the evolution of study design elements in these studies, including patient eligibility criteria, the use of tailored OCS dose reduction schedules, monitoring of outcomes, the use of biomarkers and use of repetitive assessments of adrenal function during OCS tapering. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these developments have improved OCS-sparing asthma studies in recent years and the lessons learned may help with optimization of further OCS-sparing studies, and potentially clinical practice in the future.

Mepolizumab for Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an eosinophilic phenotype may benefit from treatment with mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against interleukin-5. METHODS: We performed two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing mepolizumab (100 mg in METREX, 100 or 300 mg in METREO) with placebo, given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks for 52 weeks in patients with COPD who had a history of moderate or severe exacerbations while taking inhaled glucocorticoid-based triple maintenance therapy. In METREX, unselected patients in the modified intention-to-treat population with an eosinophilic phenotype were stratified according to blood eosinophil count (≥150 per cubic millimeter at screening or ≥300 per cubic millimeter during the previous year). In METREO, all patients had a blood eosinophil count of at least 150 per cubic millimeter at screening or at least 300 per cubic millimeter during the previous year. The primary end point was the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In METREX, the mean annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the modified intention-to-treat population with an eosinophilic phenotype (462 patients) was 1.40 per year in the mepolizumab group versus 1.71 per year in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.04); no significant between-group differences were found in the overall modified intention-to-treat population (836 patients) (rate ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; adjusted P>0.99). In METREO, the mean annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 1.19 per year in the 100-mg mepolizumab group, 1.27 per year in the 300-mg mepolizumab group, and 1.49 per year in the placebo group. The rate ratios for exacerbations in the 100-mg and 300-mg mepolizumab groups versus the placebo group were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.07) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; adjusted P=0.14), respectively. A greater effect of mepolizumab, as compared with placebo, on the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was found among patients with higher blood eosinophil counts at screening. The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab at a dose of 100 mg was associated with a lower annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations than placebo among patients with COPD and an eosinophilic phenotype. This finding suggests that eosinophilic airway inflammation contributes to COPD exacerbations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METREX and METREO ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02105948 and NCT02105961 .).

Characteristics and treatment regimens across ERS SHARP severe asthma registries.

Little is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) Clinical Research Collaboration and it is designed to explore these variations. Therefore, we aimed to compare characteristics of patients in European severe asthma registries and treatments before starting biologicals.This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of aggregated data from 11 national severe asthma registries that joined SHARP with established patient databases.Analysis of data from 3236 patients showed many differences in characteristics and lifestyle factors. Current smokers ranged from 0% (Poland and Sweden) to 9.5% (Belgium), mean body mass index ranged from 26.2 (Italy) to 30.6 kg·m-2 (the UK) and the largest difference in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted was 20.9% (the Netherlands versus Hungary). Before starting biologicals patients were treated differently between countries: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose ranged from 700 to 1335 µg·day-1 between those from Slovenia versus Poland when starting anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody and from 772 to 1344 µg·day-1 in those starting anti-IgE (Slovenia versus Spain). Maintenance oral corticosteroid use ranged from 21.0% (Belgium) to 63.0% (Sweden) and from 9.1% (Denmark) to 56.1% (the UK) in patients starting anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE, respectively.The severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment, often appearing not to comply with the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines definition of severe asthma. Treatment regimens before starting biologicals were different from inclusion criteria in clinical trials and varied between countries.

Measurement of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide: Comparison of Three Different Analysers.

BACKGROUND: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a surrogate marker for airway inflammation, supporting the diagnostic pathway and treatment decisions for asthma patients. OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to compare the new analyser Vivatmo pro (Bosch, BV) with NIOX VERO (Circassia, CN) and CLD (Ecomedics, EC). METHODS: In 100 asthmatics (median 53 years [range 20-87], 62% female, 86% on inhaled corticosteroids [mean 1,300 µg beclomethasone dipropionate or equivalent], 35% treated with biologics) 2 FeNO measurements per device were performed. Additionally, the success rate to achieve a valid NO value was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of the patients had FeNO values below 50 ppb. Median NO concentrations were 31 ppb (range 6-194) for BV, 33 ppb (9-164) for CN and 31ppb (7-353) for EC. Bland-Altman plots suggested an agreement within the predefined limits of ±5 ppb for all analysers within the therapeutically relevant range (0-70 ppb). The highest agreement in FeNO levels were between BV and EC with mean differences of -0.26 (95% CI -1.48 to 0.95) vs. 1.52 (95% CI 0.4-2.6) ppb for CN and EC. The results indicate an equivalence of the methods (two-one sided t test-equivalence test: p < 0.0001, ±5 ppb margins). Acceptance of the measurements was high for all devices (97%). The highest success rate to obtain 2 valid NO values without failed attempts was achieved with the BV analyser (73 vs. 62% for the CN analyser and 46% for the EC analyser). CONCLUSIONS: For the range between 0 and 70 ppb, FeNO concentrations measured with all 3 devices were statistically equivalent within predefined acceptance criteria and did not differ in a clinically relevant way.

Tralokinumab did not demonstrate oral corticosteroid-sparing effects in severe asthma.

Long-term oral corticosteroid (OCS) use in patients with severe asthma is associated with significant adverse effects.This 40-week, randomised, double-blind trial evaluated the OCS-sparing potential of tralokinumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma requiring maintenance OCS treatment plus inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists. Overall, 140 patients were randomised to tralokinumab 300 mg or placebo (n=70 in each group) administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The primary end-point was percentage change from baseline in average OCS dose at week 40, while maintaining asthma control. Secondary end-points included proportion of patients with a prescribed maintenance OCS dose of ≤5 mg, those with a ≥50% reduction in prescribed maintenance OCS dose and asthma exacerbation rate. Safety was also assessed.At week 40, the percentage reduction from baseline in the final daily average OCS dose was not significantly different between tralokinumab and placebo (37.62% versus 29.85%; p=0.271). There were no significant between-treatment differences for any secondary end-point. Overall, reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar for the tralokinumab and placebo groups. Although a greater proportion of tralokinumab-treated patients reported upper respiratory tract infections (35.7% versus 14.3%), there were no reported cases of pneumonia.Overall, tralokinumab did not demonstrate an OCS-sparing effect in patients with severe asthma.

Allergen-induced asthmatic responses modified by a GATA3-specific DNAzyme.

BACKGROUND: The most prevalent phenotype of asthma is characterized by eosinophil-dominated inflammation that is driven by a type 2 helper T cell (Th2). Therapeutic targeting of GATA3, an important transcription factor of the Th2 pathway, may be beneficial. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SB010, a novel DNA enzyme (DNAzyme) that is able to cleave and inactivate GATA3 messenger RNA (mRNA). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial of SB010 involving patients who had allergic asthma with sputum eosinophilia and who also had biphasic early and late asthmatic responses after laboratory-based allergen provocation. A total of 40 patients could be evaluated; 21 were assigned to receive 10 mg of SB010, and 19 were assigned to receive placebo, with each study drug administered by means of inhalation once daily for 28 days. An allergen challenge was performed before and after the 28-day period. The primary end point was the late asthmatic response as quantified by the change in the area under the curve (AUC) for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). RESULTS: After 28 days, SB010 attenuated the mean late asthmatic response by 34%, as compared with the baseline response, according to the AUC for FEV1, whereas placebo was associated with a 1% increase in the AUC for FEV1 (P=0.02). The early asthmatic response with SB010 was attenuated by 11% as measured by the AUC for FEV1, whereas the early response with placebo was increased by 10% (P=0.03). Inhibition of the late asthmatic response by SB010 was associated with attenuation of allergen-induced sputum eosinophilia and with lower levels of tryptase in sputum and lower plasma levels of interleukin-5. Allergen-induced levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide and airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine were not affected by either SB010 or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with SB010 significantly attenuated both late and early asthmatic responses after allergen provocation in patients with allergic asthma. Biomarker analysis showed an attenuation of Th2-regulated inflammatory responses. (Funded by Sterna Biologicals and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01743768.).

Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody, as add-on treatment for patients with severe, uncontrolled, eosinophilic asthma (CALIMA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is a humanised, afucosylated, anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that induces direct, rapid, and nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and elevated blood eosinophil counts. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (CALIMA) undertaken at 303 sites in 11 countries, we enrolled patients aged 12-75 years with severe asthma uncontrolled by medium-dosage to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS plus LABA) and a history of two or more exacerbations in the previous year. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 56 weeks of benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses 4 weeks apart), or placebo (all subcutaneous injection). Patients were stratified (2:1) by baseline blood eosinophil counts 300 cells per µL or greater and less than 300 cells per µL, respectively. Patients and study centre staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annual exacerbation rate ratio versus placebo for patients receiving high-dosage ICS plus LABA with baseline blood eosinophils 300 cells per µL or greater (intention-to-treat analysis). Key secondary endpoints were pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and total asthma symptom score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01914757. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2013, and March 16, 2015, 2505 patients were enrolled, of whom 1306 patients were randomised; 425 patients were randomly assigned to and received benralizumab 30 mg Q4W, 441 to benralizumab 30 mg Q8W, and 440 to placebo. 728 patients were included in the primary analysis population. Benralizumab resulted in significantly lower annual exacerbation rates with the Q4W regimen (rate 0·60 [95% CI 0·48-0·74], rate ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·85], p=0·0018, n=241) and Q8W regimen (rate 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·82], rate ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·54-0·95], p=0·0188, n=239) compared with placebo (rate 0·93 [95% CI 0·77-1·12], n=248). Benralizumab also significantly improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (Q4W and Q8W) and total asthma symptom score (Q8W only) in these patients. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (90 [21%] in the Q4W group, 79 [18%] in the Q8W group, and 92 [21%] in the placebo group) and worsening asthma (61 [14%] in the Q4W group, 47 [11%] in the Q8W group, and 68 [15%] in the group). INTERPRETATION: Benralizumab significantly reduced annual exacerbation rates and was generally well tolerated for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with blood eosinophils 300 cells per µL or greater. Our data further refine the patient population likely to receive the greatest benefit from benralizumab treatment. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.