Effects of combination treatment with tezepelumab and allergen immunotherapy on nasal responses to allergen: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) has been shown to play a central role in the initiation and persistence of allergic responses. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether tezepelumab, a human monoclonal anti-TSLP antibody, improved the efficacy of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and promoted the development of tolerance in patients with allergic rhinitis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind parallel design trial in patients with cat allergy. A total of 121 patients were randomized to receive either intravenous tezepelumab plus subcutaneous cat SCIT, cat SCIT alone, tezepelumab alone, or placebo for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation. Nasal allergen challenge (NAC), skin testing, and blood and nasal samples were obtained throughout the study. RESULTS: At week 52, the NAC-induced total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) (calculated as area under the curve [AUC0-1h] and as peak score [Peak0-1h] during the first hour after NAC) were significantly reduced in patients receiving tezepelumab/SCIT compared to SCIT alone. At week 104, one year after stopping treatment, the primary end point TNSS AUC0-1h was not significantly different in the tezepelumab/SCIT group compared to SCIT alone, while TNSS Peak0-1h was significantly lower in those receiving combination treatment versus SCIT. Transcriptomic analysis of nasal epithelial samples demonstrated that treatment with the combination of SCIT/tezepelumab, but neither monotherapy, caused persistent downregulation of a gene network related to type 2 inflammation that was associated with improvement in NAC responses. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of TSLP augments the efficacy of SCIT during therapy and may promote tolerance after a 1-year course of treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02237196).

Results of a Phase 2b Trial With GB001, a Prostaglandin D2 Receptor 2 Antagonist, in Moderate to Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin D2 receptor 2 (DP2) antagonists inhibit prostaglandin D2-induced effects, including recruitment and activation of cells driving asthma pathogenesis. However, challenges identifying target population and end points persist. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effect of the DP2 antagonist GB001 on asthma worsening in patients with moderate to severe eosinophilic asthma? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group, multicenter study, GB001 or placebo was added to standard-of-care treatment in patients with moderate to severe asthma with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 250 cells/µL. Patients aged ≥ 18 years to < 75 years received one of four once-daily treatments (GB001 20 mg, 40 mg, or 60 mg or placebo). The primary end point was the proportion of patients who experienced asthma worsening by 24 weeks. Efficacy analyses were performed for the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses for patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients were treated. The ORs for asthma worsening for GB001 20 mg, 40 mg, and 60 mg vs placebo were 0.674 (95% CI, 0.398-1.142), 0.677 (95% CI, 0.399-1.149), and 0.651 (95% CI, 0.385-1.100), respectively. Analysis according to baseline blood eosinophil levels and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide did not show greater treatment effects with higher values. Elevated liver aminotransferase levels and adverse events leading to discontinuation were more frequent for GB001 60 mg than with placebo, GB001 20 mg, and GB001 40 mg. INTERPRETATION: Although GB001 did not significantly reduce the odds of asthma worsening, reductions favoring GB001 were observed. Treatment effects were consistent regardless of high/low type 2 phenotype. The overall safety profile was acceptable, although GB001 60 mg was associated with risk of liver injury. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03683576; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Short-Term Subcutaneous Allergy Immunotherapy and Dupilumab are Well Tolerated in Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been proven as an effective therapy against some allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients unresponsive to intranasal corticosteroids and/or antihistamines but carries risk of systemic allergic reactions. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT+dupilumab vs SCIT alone. METHODS: This phase 2a, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study conducted in 103 adults with grass pollen-induced SAR (NCT03558997) randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to SCIT, dupilumab (300 mg every 2 weeks), SCIT+dupilumab, or placebo. SCIT was administered using an 8-week cluster protocol followed by 8 weeks of maintenance injections. Primary endpoint was change from pre-treatment baseline in area under the curve (AUC) in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) 0-1 h following nasal allergen challenge (NAC) with timothy grass extract at Week 17. RESULTS: Although 16 weeks of treatment with SCIT+dupilumab did not significantly improve TNSS AUC (0-1 h) following NAC at Week 17 vs SCIT (least squares mean -56.76% vs -52.03%), a higher proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (61.5%) achieved SCIT maintenance dose vs SCIT (46.2%). A lower proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (7.7%) required epinephrine rescue treatment vs SCIT (19.2%). There were significantly fewer withdrawals in the SCIT+dupilumab group than in the SCIT group (n = 2 [7.7%] vs n = 8 [30.8%]; P = 0.0216); the majority of SCIT group withdrawals were due to SCIT-related intolerability, compared with no discontinuations from the SCIT+dupilumab group. CONCLUSION: In SAR patients, 16 weeks of SCIT+dupilumab may improve SCIT tolerability but did not incrementally reduce post-allergen challenge nasal symptoms compared with SCIT alone. CLINICAL STUDY NUMBER: NCT03558997.

Safety and efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate delivered by breath-actuated or metered-dose inhaler for persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Breath-actuated inhalers (BAI) have been developed to simplify the delivery of inhaled medication. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane BAI and metered-dose inhaler (MDI) versus placebo in patients who previously used a mid- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroid or inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist for persistent asthma. METHODS: This phase III study included five treatment groups: placebo, and four beclomethasone dipropionate groups (BAI 320 µg/day, BAI 640 µg/day, MDI 320 µg/day, and MDI 640 µg/day). Efficacy over 12 weeks was assessed by spirometry, peak flow measurements, and other clinical end points. Safety was assessed by adverse events. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted trough morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the effect curve from time 0 to 12 weeks (primary end point) was increased in the BAI 320 and BAI 640 µg/day groups and the MDI 640 µg/day group versus placebo (not significant). Clinically important improvements were noted in morning and evening peak expiratory flow and decreased rescue medications. More patients who received placebo than patients in active treatment groups withdrew due to meeting the stopping criteria for worsening asthma. Patients in the active treatment groups experienced a greater decrease in asthma symptoms than patients in the placebo group. Quality of life and Asthma Control Test scores improved in the active treatment groups compared with the placebo group (p ≤ 0.0074). The most common adverse events (>5% in any group) were oral candidiasis and upper respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSION: Clinical benefits for patients who used BAI 320 and 640 µg/day and MDI 640 µg/day were demonstrated. The safety profiles of BAI 320 and 640 µg/day were comparable with that of the MDI. These benefits and the continued need for better symptom control among patients with asthma support the continued development of this controller medication. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02031640.

Retrospective analysis of the efficacy of omalizumab in chronic refractory urticaria.

Omalizumab has been shown to be effective in chronic urticaria (CU) patients in numerous reports. However, it remains unknown whether there are specific phenotypes of CU that are more responsive to omalizumab therapy. We sought to identify CU phenotypes responsive to treatment with omalizumab by characterizing patients and their response patterns. A retrospective chart review analysis of refractory CU patients unresponsive to high-dose H1-blockers and immunomodulators and subsequently treated with omalizumab at the University of Wisconsin Allergy Clinic was performed with particular focus on their autoimmune characteristics, response to therapy, and dosing parameters. We analyzed 19 refractory CU patients (16 patients failed or had toxic side effects to immunomodulators) treated with omalizumab with an overall response rate of 89% (17/19). Of these 19 patients, 9 patients (47%) had a complete response, 8 patients (42%) had a partial response, and 2 patients (11%) had no response. In comparing the response patterns to omalizumab, we found no statistically significant differences among "autoimmune positive" versus "autoimmune negative" patients. No statistically significant differences in responses were observed when comparing demographic parameters including age, gender, IgE levels, or dosing regimen. Our study shows that omalizumab has robust efficacy in refractory CU patients regardless of their autoimmune status, age, gender, IgE levels, or dosing protocol.

Step-up therapy for children with uncontrolled asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: For children who have uncontrolled asthma despite the use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), evidence to guide step-up therapy is lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned 182 children (6 to 17 years of age), who had uncontrolled asthma while receiving 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily, to receive each of three blinded step-up therapies in random order for 16 weeks: 250 microg of fluticasone twice daily (ICS step-up), 100 microg of fluticasone plus 50 microg of a long-acting beta-agonist twice daily (LABA step-up), or 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily plus 5 or 10 mg of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist daily (LTRA step-up). We used a triple-crossover design and a composite of three outcomes (exacerbations, asthma-control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second) to determine whether the frequency of a differential response to the step-up regimens was more than 25%. RESULTS: A differential response occurred in 161 of 165 patients who were evaluated (P<0.001). The response to LABA step-up therapy was most likely to be the best response, as compared with responses to LTRA step-up (relative probability, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.3; P=0.004) and ICS step-up (relative probability, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.4; P=0.002). Higher scores on the Asthma Control Test before randomization (indicating better control at baseline) predicted a better response to LABA step-up (P=0.009). White race predicted a better response to LABA step-up, whereas black patients were least likely to have a best response to LTRA step-up (P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all the children had a differential response to each step-up therapy. LABA step-up was significantly more likely to provide the best response than either ICS or LTRA step-up. However, many children had a best response to ICS or LTRA step-up therapy, highlighting the need to regularly monitor and appropriately adjust each child's asthma therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00395304.)

Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing.

BACKGROUND: Acute wheezing illnesses in preschoolers require better management strategies to reduce morbidity. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine the effectiveness of episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid and a leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschoolers with intermittent wheezing. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 12-month trial, 238 children aged 12 to 59 months with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing received 7 days of either budesonide inhalation suspension (1 mg twice daily), montelukast (4 mg daily), or placebo in addition to albuterol with each identified respiratory tract illness (RTI). Proportion of episode-free days (EFDs) during the 12-month trial was the primary outcome. RESULTS: The 3 treatment groups did not differ in proportions of EFDs, with adjusted mean EFDs of 76% (95% CI, 70% to 81%) for budesonide, 73% (95% CI, 66% to 79%) for montelukast, and 74% (95% CI, 65% to 81%) for conventional therapy (P = .66). The 3 groups did not differ in oral corticosteroid use, health care use, quality of life, or linear growth. However, during RTIs, budesonide and montelukast therapy led to modest reductions in trouble breathing (38% [P = .003] and 37% [P = .003], respectively) and interference with activity scores (32% [P = .01] and 40% [P = .001], respectively) that were most evident in those with positive asthma predictive indices. CONCLUSIONS: In preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing, episodic use of either budesonide or montelukast early in RTIs, when added to albuterol, did not increase the proportion of EFDs or decrease oral corticosteroid use over a 12-month period. However, indicators of severity of acute illnesses were reduced, particularly in children with positive asthma predictive indices.

Long-term comparison of 3 controller regimens for mild-moderate persistent childhood asthma: the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial.

BACKGROUND: More evidence is needed on which to base recommendations for treatment of mild-moderate persistent asthma in school-aged children. OBJECTIVE: The Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial (PACT) compared the effectiveness of 3 regimens in achieving asthma control. METHODS: A total of 285 children (ages 6-14 years) with mild-moderate persistent asthma on the basis of symptoms, and with FEV(1) >or= 80% predicted and methacholine FEV(1) PC(20) or= 80% predicted, confirming current guideline recommendations.

Response profiles to fluticasone and montelukast in mild-to-moderate persistent childhood asthma.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data are needed to base recommendations for controller asthma medication use in school-aged children. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine intraindividual and interindividual response profiles and predictors of response to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA). METHODS: An ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 mug twice daily), and an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly, age dependent), were administered to children ages 6 to 17 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma using only as-needed bronchodilators in a multicenter, double-masked, 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. Clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to these controllers were evaluated. RESULTS: Improvements in most clinical asthma control measures occurred with both controllers. However, clinical outcomes (asthma control days [ACDs], the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire, and albuterol use), pulmonary responses (FEV(1)/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow variability, morning peak expiratory flow, and measures of impedance), and inflammatory biomarkers (exhaled nitric oxide [eNO]) improved significantly more with fluticasone than with montelukast treatment. eNO was both a predictor of ACDs (P = .011) and a response indicator (P = .003) in discriminating the difference in ACD response between fluticasone and montelukast. CONCLUSIONS: The more favorable clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to an ICS than to an LTRA provide pediatric-based group evidence to support ICSs as the preferred first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in children. eNO, as a predictor of response, might help to identify individual children not receiving controller medication who achieve a greater improvement in ACDs with an ICS compared with an LTRA.

Omalizumab pretreatment decreases acute reactions after rush immunotherapy for ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Rush immunotherapy (RIT) presents an attractive alternative to standard immunotherapy. However, RIT carries a much greater risk of acute allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective in enhancing both safety and efficacy of RIT. METHODS: Adult patients with ragweed allergic rhinitis were enrolled in a 3-center, 4-arm, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received either 9 weeks of omalizumab (0.016 mg/kg/IgE [IU/mL]/mo) or placebo, followed by 1-day rush (maximal dose 1.2-4.0 mug Amb a 1) or placebo immunotherapy, then 12 weeks of omalizumab or placebo plus immunotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients enrolled, 123 completed all treatments. Ragweed-specific IgG levels increased >11-fold in immunotherapy patients, and free IgE levels declined >10-fold in omalizumab patients. Patients receiving omalizumab plus immunotherapy had fewer adverse events than those receiving immunotherapy alone. Post hoc analysis of groups receiving immunotherapy demonstrated that addition of omalizumab resulted in a 5-fold decrease in risk of anaphylaxis caused by RIT (odds ratio, 0.17; P = .026). On an intent-to-treat basis, patients receiving both omalizumab and immunotherapy showed a significant improvement in severity scores during the ragweed season compared with those receiving immunotherapy alone (0.69 vs 0.86; P = .044). CONCLUSION: Omalizumab pretreatment enhances the safety of RIT for ragweed allergic rhinitis. Furthermore, combined therapy with omalizumab and allergen immunotherapy may be an effective strategy to permit more rapid and higher doses of allergen immunotherapy to be given more safely and with greater efficacy to patients with allergic diseases.

Immunotherapy: first do no harm.

Immunotherapy continues to be a treatment modality that is used most exclusively by allergists. The acceptance of immunotherapy for treating children with allergic rhinitis or asthma has been limited by the lack of adequate numbers of pediatric double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of specific allergen immunotherapy; use of venom immunotherapy is more clearly supported by current data. Children represent a unique group of patients where allergic disease may not only be treated using immunotherapy resulting in reduction of symptoms, signs, and complications of disease, but may also hold the best potential for the evasive goal of prevention of the development of future allergic disease.

Characterization of within-subject responses to fluticasone and montelukast in childhood asthma.

BACKGROUND: Responses to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) vary among asthmatic patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether responses to ICSs and LTRAs are concordant for individuals or whether asthmatic patients who do not respond to one medication respond to the other. METHODS: Children 6 to 17 years of age with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to one of 2 crossover sequences, including 8 weeks of an ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 microg twice daily), and 8 weeks of an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly depending on age), in a multicenter, double-masked, 18-week trial. Response was assessed on the basis of improvement in FEV 1 and assessed for relationships to baseline asthma phenotype-associated biomarkers. RESULTS: Defining response as improvement in FEV 1 of 7.5% or greater, 17% of 126 participants responded to both medications, 23% responded to fluticasone alone, 5% responded to montelukast alone, and 55% responded to neither medication. Compared with those who responded to neither medication, favorable response to fluticasone alone was associated with higher levels of exhaled nitric oxide, total eosinophil counts, levels of serum IgE, and levels of serum eosinophil cationic protein and lower levels of methacholine PC(20) and pulmonary function; favorable response to montelukast alone was associated with younger age and shorter disease duration. Greater differential response to fluticasone over montelukast was associated with higher bronchodilator use, bronchodilator response, exhaled nitric oxide levels, and eosinophil cationic protein levels and lower methacholine PC(20) and pulmonary function values. CONCLUSIONS: Response to fluticasone and montelukast vary considerably. Children with low pulmonary function or high levels of markers associated with allergic inflammation should receive ICS therapy. Other children could receive either ICSs or LTRAs.