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 time course of changes in biomarkers and clinical manifestations following treatment cessation after 2 years of tezepelumab treatment. METHODS: DESTINATION was a two-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 (EFU) period from week 104 to 140. Change over time in key biomarkers and clinical outcomes were assessed in tezepelumab versus placebo recipients for 40 weeks after stopping treatment. RESULTS: Of 569 patients enrolled in the EFU period, 426 were included in the analysis (289 received tezepelumab and 137 placebo). Over the 40-week period after the last tezepelumab dose, blood eosinophil counts (BEC), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 scores gradually increased from weeks 4-10, with a gradual reduction in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second such that BECs, FeNO levels and clinical outcomes returned to placebo levels; however, none of these outcomes returned to baseline levels. Total immunoglobulin E 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 demonstrates benefits of continued tezepelumab treatment in the management of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, compared with stopping treatment after 2 years.

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.

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.

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 exacerbations 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 ≥ 18 years of age 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 naïve 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.

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.).

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.

Effectiveness of a Maintenance and Reliever Digihaler System in Asthma: 24-Week Randomized Study (CONNECT2).

BACKGROUND: Digital health tools have been shown to help address challenges in asthma control, including inhaler technique, treatment adherence, and short-acting ß2-agonist overuse. The maintenance and reliever Digihaler System (DS) comprises 2 Digihaler inhalers (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and albuterol) with an associated patient App and web-based Dashboard. Clinicians can review patients' inhaler use and Digihaler inhalation parameter data to support clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: CONNECT2 evaluated asthma control in participants using the DS versus standard-of-care (SoC) maintenance and reliever inhalers. METHODS: Participants (13 years or older) with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score <19) were randomized 4:3 (open-label) to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥20 or increase from baseline of ≥3 units at week 24). RESULTS: There was an 88.7% probability that participants using the DS would have greater odds of achieving improvement in asthma control compared with SoC after 24 weeks. The mean odds ratio (95% credible interval) for DS versus SoC was 1.35 (0.846-2.038), indicating a 35% higher odds of improved asthma control with the DS. The DS group had more clinician-participant interactions versus SoC, mainly addressing a poor inhaler technique. DS participants' maintenance treatment adherence was good (month 1: 79.2%; month 6: 68.6%); reliever use decreased by 38.2% versus baseline. App and Dashboard usability was rated "good." CONCLUSION: The positive results in asthma control in this study after 24 weeks demonstrate the effectiveness of the DS in asthma management.

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.

Association of Sputum Eosinophilia With Easily Measured Type-2 Inflammatory Biomarkers in Untreated Mild Persistent Asthma.

BACKGROUND: A multicenter clinical trial in patients with mild persistent asthma indicated that response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is limited to those with sputum eosinophilia. However, testing for sputum eosinophilia is impractical in most clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We examined associations between sputum eosinophilia and type 2 inflammatory biomarkers in untreated mild persistent asthma. METHODS: Induced sputum, blood eosinophil count (BEC), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and serum periostin were obtained twice during the 6-week run-in period in a clinical trial that enrolled patients 12 years and older with symptomatic, mild persistent asthma without controller therapy. The optimal threshold for each biomarker was based on achieving 80% or greater sensitivity. Performance of biomarkers (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], range 0.0-1.0) in predicting sputum eosinophilia 2% or greater was determined; AUCs of 0.8 to 0.9 and more than 0.9 define excellent and outstanding discrimination, respectively. RESULTS: Of 564 participants, 27% were sputum eosinophilic, 83% were atopic, 70% had BEC of 200/uL or higher or FeNO of 25 ppb or greater; 64% of participants without sputum eosinophilia had elevated BEC or FeNO. The AUCs for BEC, FeNO, and both together in predicting sputum eosinophilia were all below the threshold for excellent discrimination (AUC 0.75, 0.78, and 0.79, respectively). Periostin (in adults) had poor discrimination (AUC 0.59; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In untreated mild persistent asthma, there is substantial discordance between sputum eosinophilia, BEC, and FeNO. Until prospective trials test the ability of alternative biomarkers to predict ICS response, BEC or FeNO phenotyping may be an option to consider ICS through a shared decision-making process with consideration of other clinical features.

Use of Quantitative CT Imaging to Identify Bronchial Thermoplasty Responders.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a treatment for patients with poorly controlled, severe asthma. However, predictors of treatment response to BT are defined poorly. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do baseline radiographic and clinical characteristics exist that predict response to BT? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal prospective cohort study of participants with severe asthma receiving BT across eight academic medical centers. Participants received three separate BT treatments and were monitored at 3-month intervals for 1 year after BT. Similar to prior studies, a positive response to BT was defined as either improvement in Asthma Control Test results of ≥ 3 or Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire of ≥ 0.5. Regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between pretreatment clinical and quantitative CT scan measures with subsequent BT response. RESULTS: From 2006 through 2017, 88 participants received BT, with 70 participants (79.5%) identified as responders by Asthma Control Test or Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire criteria. Responders were less likely to undergo an asthma-related ICU admission in the prior year (3% vs 25%; P = .01). On baseline quantitative CT imaging, BT responders showed less air trapping percentage (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .03), a greater Jacobian determinant (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.05-2.11), greater SD of the Jacobian determinant (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.04-3.26), and greater anisotropic deformation index (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.06-8.86). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest study to evaluate baseline quantitative CT imaging and clinical characteristics associated with BT response. Our results show that preservation of normal lung expansion, indicated by less air trapping, a greater magnitude of isotropic expansion, and greater within-lung spatial variation on quantitative CT imaging, were predictors of future BT response. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01185275; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). RESULTS: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. CONCLUSION: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

Long-term efficacy of dupilumab in severe asthma by baseline oral corticosteroid dose.

Background: Dupilumab has been shown to improve clinical outcomes long term while reducing oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose in patients with severe OCS-dependent asthma. This post hoc analysis assesses the impact of OCS dose at baseline (≤10 or >10 mg·day-1) on long-term outcomes of dupilumab treatment. Methods: Annualised severe asthma exacerbation rates, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), measures of asthma control and quality of life, and OCS dose were evaluated in patients from the phase 3 VENTURE trial with severe OCS-dependent asthma, further categorised by OCS dose ≤10 or >10 mg·day-1 at parent study baseline (PSBL), who enrolled in TRAVERSE. Results: Dupilumab reduced the annualised exacerbation rate in VENTURE, and it remained low throughout TRAVERSE (0.202-0.265 (OCS ≤10 mg·day-1 at PSBL) and 0.221-0.366 (OCS >10 mg·day-1 at PSBL)). Improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV1, asthma control and quality of life observed in VENTURE dupilumab patients were sustained throughout TRAVERSE. Patients on placebo during VENTURE showed rapid improvements in FEV1 upon initiating dupilumab in TRAVERSE, which were sustained to the end of TRAVERSE. Reductions in OCS dose observed in VENTURE were maintained throughout TRAVERSE, with more than two-thirds of patients achieving reductions in OCS doses to ≤5 mg·day-1 by TRAVERSE week 48. Conclusions: Improvements in clinical outcomes and reductions in OCS dose with dupilumab observed in VENTURE were maintained throughout TRAVERSE, regardless of baseline disease severity. Patients who switched from placebo in VENTURE to dupilumab in TRAVERSE had improved clinical outcomes and reductions in OCS dose comparable to those given dupilumab in VENTURE.

Tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma: a plain language summary of the PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of 2 clinical studies that looked at a medicine called tezepelumab. Tezepelumab is approved in the United States of America (USA), the European Union (EU) and several other countries for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma in people aged 12 and above. The results of these 2 studies, called PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR, formed the basis for tezepelumab's approval for use. Tezepelumab is a type of biologic treatment called an antibody. Biologics are treatments that target certain cells or proteins in the body and often in the immune system - the body's natural defence system against infections and diseases - to reduce patients' disease. It works by blocking a key first step in the body's chain reaction leading to inflammation in the airways of people with severe asthma. The clinical studies were done to learn if tezepelumab can be used to treat people with severe, uncontrolled asthma and to find out about its safety. In both studies, tezepelumab was compared to placebo. A placebo is a dummy treatment that looked like tezepelumab but did not have any medicine in it. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: In both studies, tezepelumab reduced the number of severe asthma attacks that the participants had per year compared with placebo. It also increased the volume of air that the participants could breathe out in 1 second compared with placebo. Tezepelumab was well-tolerated, and a similar number of participants had health issues in the tezepelumab and placebo treatment groups. The most common health issues that the participants had during the PATHWAY study were: Worsening of asthma, common cold, headache, and inflammation of the airways. The most common health issues that the participants had during the NAVIGATOR study were: Common cold, infection of the sinuses, throat and airways, headache, worsening of asthma, and inflammation of the airways. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The results showed that participants who had monthly doses of tezepelumab had fewer severe asthma attacks and better lung function than those who had placebo. In both studies, the health issues that the participants had were similar between the tezepelumab and placebo treatment groups. Overall, the studies showed that tezepelumab worked in a broad population of people with severe asthma and that the study participants had an acceptable level of health issues during the studies. These results led to the approval of tezepelumab for people with severe asthma aged 12 and above in the USA, EU and other countries. Clinical Trial Registration: PATHWAY study: NCT02054130; NAVIGATOR study: NCT03347279 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Vaccine-elicited B- and T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is impaired in chronic lung disease patients.

Background: While vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provides significant protection from coronavirus disease 2019, the protection afforded to individuals with chronic lung disease is less well established. This study seeks to understand how chronic lung disease impacts SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-elicited immunity. Methods: Deep immune phenotyping of humoral and cell-mediated responses to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was performed in patients with asthma, COPD and interstitial lung disease (ILD) compared to healthy controls. Results: 48% of vaccinated patients with chronic lung diseases had reduced antibody titres to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antigen relative to healthy controls. Vaccine antibody titres were significantly reduced among asthma (p<0.035), COPD (p<0.022) and a subset of ILD patients as early as 3-4 months after vaccination, correlating with decreased vaccine-specific memory B-cells in circulation. Vaccine-specific memory T-cells were significantly reduced in patients with asthma (CD8+ p<0.004; CD4+ p<0.023) and COPD (CD8+ p<0.008) compared to healthy controls. Impaired T-cell responsiveness was also observed in a subset of ILD patients (CD8+ 21.4%; CD4+ 42.9%). Additional heterogeneity between healthy and disease cohorts was observed among bulk and vaccine-specific follicular T-helper cells. Conclusions: Deep immune phenotyping of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response revealed the complex nature of vaccine-elicited immunity and highlights the need for more personalised vaccination schemes in patients with underlying lung conditions.

Biologics and Hypereosinophilic Syndromes: Knowledge Gaps and Controversies.

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are a heterogeneous group of disorders defined by blood and/or tissue hypereosinophilia and clinical manifestations attributable to the eosinophilia. Although various clinical subtypes of HES have been described, the general approach to therapy in all subtypes has focused on the reduction of blood and tissue eosinophilia to improve symptoms and halt disease progression. Until recently, this typically involved the use of corticosteroids and/or other immunosuppressive or cytotoxic drugs with significant toxicity. Whereas imatinib, the first targeted therapy approved for treatment of HES, has dramatically changed the prognosis of patients with primary (myeloid) forms of HES, it is ineffective in patients with other HES subtypes. For these nonmyeloid patients with HES, the development of eosinophil-targeting biologics (most notably, mepolizumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of HES) has been transformative. Nevertheless, important issues remain with respect to the efficacy and safety of these biologics in the treatment of the varied subtypes of HES. Moreover, with the increasing number of commercially available biologics with direct or indirect effects on eosinophils, questions related to the choice of initial biologic, potential reasons for biologic failure, and treatment options in the setting of incomplete response are becoming increasingly common.

Preference for and impact of telehealth vs in-person asthma visits among Black and Latinx adults.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx adults experience disproportionate asthma-related morbidity and limited specialty care access. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic expanded telehealth use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate visit type (telehealth [TH] vs in-person [IP]) preferences and the impact of visit type on asthma outcomes among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: For this PREPARE trial ancillary study, visit type preference was surveyed by e-mail or telephone post-trial. Emergency medical record data on visit types and asthma outcomes were available for a subset (March 2020 to April 2021). Characteristics associated with visit type preferences, and relationships between visit type and asthma outcomes (control [Asthma Control Test] and asthma-related quality of life [Asthma Symptom Utility Index]), were tested using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 866 participants consented to be surveyed, with 847 respondents. Among the participants with asthma care experience with both visit types, 42.0% preferred TH for regular checkups, which associated with employment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.39; P = .02), lower asthma medication adherence (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03), and having more historical emergency department and urgent care asthma visits (OR = 1.10 for each additional visit; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .02), after adjustment. Emergency medical record data were available for 98 participants (62 TH, 36 IP). Those with TH visits were more likely Latinx, from the Southwest, employed, using inhaled corticosteroid-only controller therapy, with lower body mass index, and lower self-reported asthma medication adherence vs those with IP visits only. Both groups had comparable Asthma Control Test (18.4 vs 18.9, P = .52) and Asthma Symptom Utility Index (0.79 vs 0.84, P = .16) scores after adjustment. CONCLUSION: TH may be similarly efficacious as and often preferred over IP among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, especially for regular checkups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02995733.