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

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

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]).

Validation of the German version of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ).

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ), a 10-item, equally weighted, yes/no tool assessing symptom impairment and risk of exacerbations in patients with asthma aged ≥12 years, was developed and validated in a US patient population to evaluate varying levels of asthma control. This study aimed to validate the German language version of the AIRQ in patients aged ≥12 years with different levels of asthma control. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational, multi-centre study comprising a single visit was conducted in multiple specialised asthma centres and general practices in Germany. A total of 300 patients completed the following measures: 1) Patient Sociodemographic and Clinical Questionnaire, 2) AIRQ, 3) Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 4) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the AIRQ score cut points with the greatest predictive validity in discriminating between different control levels relative to a standard of ACT plus prior-year exacerbations or ACQ-6 plus prior-year exacerbations. RESULTS: The German version of the AIRQ demonstrated a robust capability to correctly identify well-controlled versus not well- or very poorly controlled (AUC values of 0.90 or higher) and well- or not well-controlled versus very poorly controlled asthma (AUC values of 0.89 or higher). CONCLUSIONS: The German version of the AIRQ is a suitable tool to identify adults with varying levels of asthma control, which in turn can help to accurately identify patients with uncontrolled asthma in clinical practice.

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).

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)]. / 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.