Benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma by previous biologic use and key clinical subgroups: real-world XALOC-1 programme.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal Phase 3 trials and real-world studies have demonstrated benralizumab's overall efficacy and safety in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Additional large-cohort data are needed to confirm its real-world effectiveness in SEA according to previous biologic use and key baseline characteristics important for treatment selection. METHODS: XALOC-1 is a large, multinational, retrospective, observational, real-world study programme of benralizumab in adults with SEA. This 48-week integrated analysis assessed annualised exacerbation rate (AER), maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use, asthma symptom control and lung function during a 12-month baseline period and up to 48 weeks after benralizumab initiation. Subgroup analyses were based on previous biologic use and key baseline clinical characteristics (mOCS use, blood eosinophil count, exacerbation history, age at asthma diagnosis, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level and presence of atopy and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps). RESULTS: Of 1002 patients analysed, 380 were biologic-experienced. At Week 48, 71.3% were exacerbation-free (versus 17.2% at baseline); relative reduction in AER was 82.7% overall and 72.9% in biologic-experienced patients; rates were maintained across all key clinical characteristic subgroups. Of patients using mOCS at baseline (n=274), 47.4% (130/274) eliminated their use by Week 48; the mean reduction from baseline in daily dose was 51.2% and, notably, 34.9% in biologic-experienced patients (n=115). Clinically significant improvements in asthma symptom control and lung function were observed. CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world programme, SEA patients treated with benralizumab had substantial improvements in clinical outcomes irrespective of previous biologic use and key clinical characteristics important to therapeutic decision-making in clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies and aclidinium versus placebo in Chinese and other Asian patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The AVANT Phase 3 study.

AVANT was a Phase 3, 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol 400 µg/12 µg combination vs monotherapies and aclidinium vs placebo (1:1:1:1) in Asian patients (∼70% of whom were Chinese) with moderate-to-severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Endpoints were analyzed hierarchically to incorporate type I error control. At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol demonstrated improvements from baseline in 1-h morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) vs aclidinium (least squares [LS] mean 92 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] 60, 124 mL; p < 0.001), and in trough FEV1 vs formoterol (LS mean 85 mL; 95% CI 53, 117 mL; p < 0.001). Furthermore, aclidinium provided improvements in trough FEV1 vs placebo (LS mean 134 mL; 95% CI 103, 166 mL; p < 0.001). There was an improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score at Week 24 for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean 0.8; 95% CI 0.2, 1.3; p = 0.005) but not for aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean 0.4; 95% CI -0.1, 1.0; p = 0.132). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores occurred for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean -4.0; 95% CI -6.7, -1.4; p = 0.003) and aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean -2.9; 95% CI -5.5, -0.3; p = 0.031). Aclidinium/formoterol and aclidinium were well tolerated and safety findings were consistent with known profiles; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (aclidinium/formoterol: 54.8%; aclidinium: 47.4%; placebo: 53.9%), serious AEs (7.2, 7.9, and 7.8%, respectively), and AEs leading to discontinuation of study medication (2.3, 1.5, and 2.2%, respectively) were similar between groups.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy.

Background: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics. Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons. Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147). Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.

Benralizumab improves symptoms of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma with a diagnosis of nasal polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Clinically meaningful improvement in the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) was observed in patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma, and nasal polyposis (NP) treated with benralizumab in the ANDHI trial. A post hoc assessment of the effects of benralizumab on SNOT-22 response and asthma efficacy measures in these patients was conducted for further characterization of the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma and NP. METHODS: Adults with severe, eosinophilic asthma who had experienced ≥2 prior-year exacerbations despite high-dosage inhaled corticosteroid plus additional controller[s] were randomized to 24 weeks of benralizumab or placebo. Patients with physician-diagnosed chronic rhinosinusitis with NP of any severity ongoing at baseline who consented to participate were included in the current ANDHI NP substudy population. Effect on NP symptoms was assessed by the SNOT-22, with an improvement of at least 8.9 defined as clinically significant (responder). Effects on chronic asthma outcomes were assessed by means of annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AER), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 ), and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6). All p-values were nominal. RESULTS: Of the ANDHI population (n = 656), 23% (n = 153) participated in the NP substudy (n = 96 benralizumab; n = 57 placebo). Patients were 50% female, with mean age of 53 years, had prior-year AER = 3.3; mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1  = 55% predicted; and median blood eosinophil count â€‹= 510 cells/µl. For patients with high baseline SNOT-22 scores (>30), benralizumab treatment improved symptoms of NP as measured by SNOT-22 from baseline to Week 24 compared with placebo (Week 24: -10.44 [p = .0176]). Percentage of responders to SNOT-22 was greater for benralizumab vs. placebo (71.3% vs. 45.5%; p = .0036), and effect was enhanced for patients with high baseline SNOT-22 scores (>30). A 69% reduction vs. placebo in annualized AER (0.77 vs. 2.47; p < .0001) and greater clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in SGRQ total score (-16.7), FEV1 (+0.32 L), and ACQ-6 (-0.88) were observed (p < .0001). Benralizumab was well-tolerated. Frequency of adverse events (AEs) was similar for benralizumab (76.0%) and placebo (73.7%) groups. Most common AEs (frequency ≥5%) reported at a greater frequency in benralizumab vs. placebo included headache, sinusitis, pyrexia, and influenza. CONCLUSIONS: These substudy data from ANDHI demonstrated the efficacy profile of benralizumab for patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma and NP, with improvement in SNOT-22 and asthma outcomes.

Patient characteristics, biomarkers and exacerbation risk in severe, uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Greater precision in asthma exacerbation risk prediction may improve outcomes. We sought to identify clinical characteristics and biomarkers associated with elevated exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: Data were pooled from seven similarly designed phase II and III randomised controlled clinical trials of biologic therapies for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma that enrolled comparable patient populations. Annualised asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) for patients randomised to placebo were assessed by baseline clinical characteristics, and by biomarker concentrations at baseline and over the study duration. RESULTS: The AAER for the 2016 patients in the combined placebo group was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84‒0.98). Baseline characteristics associated with greater AAER were frequent or severe exacerbations within the prior 12 months, nasal polyposis, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, Asian race and Asian or Western European region. AAER increased with baseline blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F ENO) concentration, with the greatest AAER occurring for patients with eosinophils ≥300 cells·µL-1 and F ENO ≥50 ppb. No relationship was observed between baseline serum IgE concentration and AAER. Combining type 2 inflammation criteria for eosinophils and F ENO had greater prognostic value than either biomarker alone. Persistent eosinophil and F ENO elevations throughout the study period were associated with greater AAER. CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbation history, maintenance corticosteroid use, nasal polyposis, Asian race, geographic region, and elevations in blood eosinophil counts and F ENO concentrations (particularly when combined and/or persistently achieving type 2 inflammation criteria) were associated with increased exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Onset of effect and impact on health-related quality of life, exacerbation rate, lung function, and nasal polyposis symptoms for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (ANDHI): a randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: ANDHI was done to assess the efficacy of benralizumab, including onset of effect and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), exacerbation rate, lung function, and nasal polyposis symptoms. METHODS: This phase 3b, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled ANDHI study was completed in adults (aged 18-75 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma with at least 2 exacerbations in the previous year, despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus additional controllers, screening blood eosinophil counts of at least 150 cells per µL, and an Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (ACQ-6) score of 1·5 or more. Patients who met eligibility criteria were randomly assigned (2:1; stratified by previous exacerbation count [two, or three or more], maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and region), using an integrated web-based response system, to receive benralizumab at 30 mg every 8 weeks (first three doses given 4 weeks apart) or matched placebo for 24 weeks. Primary efficacy measure was annualised asthma exacerbation rate, with rate ratio (RR) calculated over the approximate 24-week follow-up. Secondary efficacy measures included change from baseline to end of treatment (week 24) in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (key secondary endpoint), FEV1, peak expiratory flow (PEF), ACQ-6, Predominant Symptom and Impairment Assessment (PSIA), Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22). All efficacy analyses, except for SNOT-22, were summarised and analysed using the full analysis set on an intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients receiving investigational product, regardless of protocol adherence or continued participation in the study). SNOT-22 was summarised for the subgroup of patients with physician-diagnosed nasal polyposis with informed consent. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170271. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2017, and Sept 25, 2019, 656 patients received benralizumab (n=427) or placebo (n=229). Baseline characteristics were consistent with severe eosinophilic asthma. Benralizumab significantly reduced exacerbation risk by 49% compared with placebo (RR estimate 0·51, 95% CI 0·39-0·65; p<0·0001) over the 24-week treatment period and provided clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline to week 24 in SGRQ total score versus placebo (least squares mean change from baseline -8·11 (95% CI -11·41 to -4·82; p<0·0001), with similar differences at earlier timepoints. Benralizumab improved FEV1, PEF, ACQ-6, CGI-C, PGI-C, PSIA, and SNOT-22 at week 24 versus placebo, with differences observed early (within weeks 1 to 4). Adverse events were reported for 271 (63%) of 427 patients on benralizumab versus 143 (62%) of 229 patients on placebo. The most commonly reported adverse events for the 427 patients receiving benralizumab (frequency >5%) were nasopharyngitis (30 [7%]), headache (37 [9%]), sinusitis (28 [7%]), bronchitis (22 [5%]), and pyrexia (26 [6%]). Fewer serious adverse events were reported for benralizumab (23 [5%]) versus placebo (25 [11%]), and the only common serious adverse event (experienced by >1% of patients) was worsening of asthma, which was reported for nine (2%) patients in the benralizumab group and nine (4%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Our results extend the efficacy profile of benralizumab for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, showing early clinical benefits in patient-reported outcomes, HRQOL, lung function, and nasal polyposis symptoms. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Reduction in clinically important deterioration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with aclidinium/formoterol.

BACKGROUND: 'Clinically important deterioration' (CID) is a composite endpoint measuring worsening of the key clinical features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), namely lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and exacerbations. ACLIFORM and AUGMENT were two 24-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies assessing twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide (AB) 400 µg/formoterol fumarate (FF) 12 µg. This pooled post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of AB/FF 400/12 µg on both first and sustained CID events versus placebo and monotherapies in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: A first CID event was defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or the worsening from baseline in ≥1 of the following: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (≥1 unit), or St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥4 units). A 'sustained' CID was defined as a worsening maintained at all subsequent visits from appearance to week 24 or a moderate/severe exacerbation at any time. CID events were assessed at three visits (weeks 4, 12, and 24); trough FEV1 was also measured at weeks 1 and 18. RESULTS: AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first CID event by 45% versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001), 18% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.82, p < 0.01), and 15% versus AB 400 µg (HR 0.85, p < 0.05). Similarly, AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a sustained CID event by 48% versus placebo (HR 0.52, p < 0.001) and 22% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.78, p < 0.01). AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first or sustained CID event for all four components versus placebo (trough FEV1 and TDI, first and sustained CID, all p < 0.001; SGRQ first CID p < 0.001; SGRQ sustained CID, p < 0.01; exacerbations first and sustained CID, both p < 0.05) and TDI and SGRQ versus FF 12 µg (TDI, first and sustained CID both p < 0.05; SGRQ first CID p < 0.01), and SGRQ versus AB 400 µg (first CID, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AB/FF 400/12 µg BID may provide greater airway stability and fewer exacerbations or deteriorations in lung function, health status, or dyspnea compared with placebo or monotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462942 (ACLIFORM); registered 26 October 2011. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397 (AUGMENT); registered 19 September 2011.