Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Severe Asthma Clinical Remission after Biologic Treatment in Adults.

Rationale: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real life. Factors associated with achieving remission after biologic initiation remain poorly understood. Objectives: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multidomain-defined remission after biologic initiation and identify prebiologic characteristics associated with achieving remission that may be used to predict it. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1 year before and after biologic initiation. A priori-defined remission cutoffs were: 0 exacerbations/yr, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted FEV1 ⩾ 80%. Remission was defined using two (exacerbations + LTOCS), three (+control or +lung function), and four of these domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8%, and 20.3% of patients met criteria for two-, three- (+control), three- (+lung function), and four-domain remission, respectively. The odds of achieving four-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10 years of asthma duration (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations per year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control, and better lung function before biologic initiation. Conclusions: One in five patients achieved four-domain remission within 1 year of biologic initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission after biologic treatment, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal.

Bronchodilator Responsiveness Measured by Spirometry and Impulse Oscillometry in Patients with Asthma After Short Acting Antimuscarinic and/or Beta-2-Agonists Inhalation.

Background: Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in asthma involves both the central and peripheral airways but is primarily relieved with beta-2-agonists and evaluated by spirometry. To date, antimuscarinics can be added as a reliever medication in more severe asthma. We hypothesize that combining both short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) and short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) could also improve the responsiveness in mild-moderate asthma. Therefore, we aimed to compare the direct effects of inhaling SABA alone, SAMA alone or combining both SABA and SAMA on the central and peripheral airways in asthma. Methods: Twenty-three patients with mild-moderate BDR in asthma performed dynamic spirometry and impulse oscillometry before (baseline) and multiple timepoints within an hour after inhalation of SABA (salbutamol), SAMA (ipratropium bromide), or both SABA and SAMA at three different visits. Results: The use of SAMA alone did not show any improvement compared to the use of SABA alone. Inhalation of SABA+SAMA, however, averaged either similar or better BDR than SABA alone in FEV1, MMEF, FVC, R5, R20 and R5-R20. Inhaling SABA+SAMA reached a stable BDR in more patients within 0-10 minutes and also reached the FEV1 (Δ%)>12% faster (3.5 minutes) than inhaling SABA alone (5.1 minutes). Inhaling SABA+SAMA was significantly better than SAMA alone in FEV1 (p = 0.015), MMEF (p = 0.0059) and R20 (p = 0.0049). Using these three variables highlighted a subgroup (30%, including more males) of patients that were more responsive to inhaling SABA+SAMA than SABA alone. Conclusion: Overall, combining SAMA with SABA was faster and more consistent at increasing the lung function than SABA alone or SAMA alone, and the additive effect was best captured by incorporating peripheral-related variables. Therefore, SAMA should be considered as an add-on reliever for mild-moderate patients with BDR in asthma.

How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.

Corrigendum on: White paper on European patient needs and suggestions on chronic type 2 inflammation of airways and skin by EUFOREA.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2022.889221.].

Applying key learnings from the EMAX trial to clinical practice and future trial design in COPD.

Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a large, multicentre, multi-national, randomised, double-blind, 24-week trial. EMAX evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual bronchodilator therapy with umeclidinium bromide (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus monotherapy with either UMEC or salmeterol (SAL) in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low exacerbation risk who were not taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). EMAX generated evidence covering a wide range of patient-centred endpoints in COPD in addition to measures of lung function, clinical deterioration and safety. In addition, prospective and post hoc secondary analyses have generated clinically valuable information regarding the effects of baseline patient characteristics on treatment outcomes. Importantly, as concomitant ICS use was not permitted in this study, EMAX compared dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy with LAMA or LABA monotherapy without potential confounding due to concurrent ICS use or withdrawal. EMAX demonstrated beneficial treatment effects of UMEC/VI over UMEC or SAL monotherapy as maintenance treatment across a range of different patient characteristics, with no forfeit in safety. Thus, the trial provided novel insights into the role of LAMA/LABA versus LABA and LAMA monotherapies as maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic COPD at low risk of exacerbations. This article will explore the clinical implications of the main findings to date of the EMAX trial and consider the key learnings this trial offers for future trial design in COPD.

White Paper on European Patient Needs and Suggestions on Chronic Type 2 Inflammation of Airways and Skin by EUFOREA.

Background: Type 2 inflammation underlies the chronicity of disease in subgroups of patients with asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and atopic dermatitis (AD), that often co-exist. Although several studies have investigated the unmet needs of asthma, AD and CRSwNP as such, little is known about the similarities and differences in experiences and perspectives of the current management of patients with comorbid Type 2 inflammatory diseases. Aims: To improve insight into the common and organ-specific needs of patients with Type 2 inflammation and comorbidities, allowing the formulation of recommendations to better address these needs in the future. Methodology: This qualitative study was conducted between July 2021 and December 2021 using semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews with patients suffering from year-long severe chronic Type 2 inflammation and at least one co-morbid inflammatory condition. Seven participating academic centers in Europe interviewed asthma (Copenhagen and Leuven), CRSwNP (London, Amsterdam and Crete) and/or AD (Oldenburg and Zurich) patients on patient characteristics, disease severity, shortcomings of current care pathways and suggestions for improvement of care. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Eighty-one patients with severe Type 2 inflammation and comorbidities were interviewed. Similar needs were recognized by patients with Type 2 inflammation, with both a lack of coordination in care and a lack of a real cure reported as being most frustrating. However, several needs are specific to asthma, CRSwNP and AD. Suggestions for improvement of care were generic across diseases, such as the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach, the improved facilitation of access to better treatments, the increase of general awareness on disease burden, and better educational programs for healthcare providers and patients. Of note, patients with CRSwNP also stated the need for alternatives to sinus surgery, whereas patients with asthma requested better medical care to prevent exacerbations and patients with AD would warmly welcome the reimbursement of emollients. Conclusion: Patients with asthma, CRSwNP and AD have shared unmet needs that need to be addressed by physicians, the academic community and health policy makers. This survey provides unique recommendations made by patients for the implementation of better care.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. CONCLUSIONS: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. RESULTS: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients.

Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dual versus mono-bronchodilators: an analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates. RESULTS: Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20).Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.