Mepolizumab Reduces Systemic Corticosteroid Use in Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To assess mepolizumab efficacy according to prior SCS use and characterize mepolizumab's SCS-sparing capabilities, in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind, phase III SYNAPSE trial (NCT03085797), adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps eligible for repeat sinus surgery despite standard of care treatment received mepolizumab (100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The impact of prior SCS courses (0/1/>1) on mepolizumab versus placebo treatment responses (changes from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp [week 52], nasal obstruction visual analog scale [weeks 49-52], and 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test total [week 52] scores) was analyzed post hoc. To characterize mepolizumab's SCS-sparing capabilities, time-to-first SCS course for nasal polyps (prespecified) and total prednisolone-equivalent oral corticosteroid dose by patient baseline characteristics (post hoc, in patients with ≥1 SCS course during SYNAPSE) were assessed up to week 52. RESULTS: Mepolizumab versus placebo improved treatment responses, irrespective of prior SCS use. By week 52, the probability of requiring SCSs for nasal polyps (Kaplan-Meier estimate [95% CI]) was lower with mepolizumab (25.4% [20.0-32.1]) versus placebo (37.5% [31.1-44.6]). In patients requiring 1 or more dose of SCSs, total (mean ± SD mg/y) prednisolone-equivalent oral corticosteroid dose was lower with mepolizumab (438.9 ± 350.40) versus placebo (505.2 ± 455.091), overall and irrespective of prior sinus surgeries, blood eosinophil count, or comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab is associated with clinical benefits in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps regardless of prior SCS use and has an SCS-sparing effect.

The Unified Airway Hypothesis: Evidence From Specific Intervention With Anti-IL-5 Biologic Therapy.

The unified airway hypothesis proposes that upper and lower airway diseases reflect a single pathological process manifesting in different locations within the airway. Functional, epidemiological, and pathological evidence has supported this well-established hypothesis for some time. However, literature on the pathobiologic roles/therapeutic targeting of eosinophils and IL-5 in upper and lower airway diseases (including asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps [CRSwNP], and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease) has recently emerged. This narrative review revisits the unified airway hypothesis by searching the scientific literature for recent learnings and clinical trial/real-world data that provide a novel perspective on its relevance for clinicians. According to the available literature, eosinophils and IL-5 have important pathophysiological roles in both the upper and lower airways, although the impact of eosinophils and IL-5 may vary in asthma and CRSwNP. Some differential effects of anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5-receptor therapies in CRSwNP have been observed, requiring further investigation. However, pharmaceutical targeting of eosinophils and IL-5 in patients with upper, lower, and comorbid upper and lower airway inflammation has led to clinical benefit, supporting the hypothesis that these are linked conditions manifesting in different locations. Consideration of this approach may improve patient care and aid clinical decision making.

Mepolizumab improvements in health-related quality of life and disease symptoms in a patient population with very severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: psychometric and efficacy analyses from the SYNAPSE study.

BACKGROUND: Although the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (e.g. the 22-item Sino-nasal Outcomes Test [SNOT-22]) in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have been defined, these definitions have not been extensively studied in patients with very severe CRSwNP, as defined by recurrent disease despite ≥ 1 previous surgery and a current need for further surgery. Therefore, the psychometric properties of the symptoms visual analogue scales (VAS) were evaluated, and meaningful within-patient change thresholds were calculated for VAS and SNOT-22. METHODS: SYNAPSE (NCT03085797), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of 4-weekly mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously added to standard of care in very severe CRSwNP. Enrolled patients (n = 407) completed symptom VAS (six items) daily and SNOT-22 every 4 weeks from baseline until Week 52. Blinded psychometric assessment of individual and composite VAS was performed post hoc, including anchor-based thresholds for meaningful within-patient changes for VAS and SNOT-22, supported by cumulative distribution function and probability density function plots. The effect of mepolizumab versus placebo for 52 weeks on VAS and SNOT-22 scores was then determined using these thresholds using unblinded data. RESULTS: Internal consistency was acceptable for VAS and SNOT-22 scores (Cronbach's α-coefficients ≥ 0.70). Test-retest reliability was demonstrated for all symptom VAS (Intra-Class Correlation coefficients > 0.75). Construct validity was acceptable between individual and composite VAS and SNOT-22 total score (r = 0.461-0.598) and between individual symptom VAS and corresponding SNOT-22 items (r = 0.560-0.780), based upon pre-specified ranges. Known-groups validity assessment demonstrated generally acceptable validity based on factors associated with respiratory health, with all VAS responsive to change. Mepolizumab treatment was associated with significantly increased odds of meeting or exceeding meaningful within-patient change thresholds, derived for this very severe cohort using six anchor groups for individual VAS (odds ratio [OR] 2.19-2.68) at Weeks 49-52, and SNOT-22 (OR 1.61-2.96) throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms VAS and SNOT-22 had acceptable psychometric properties for use in very severe CRSwNP. Mepolizumab provided meaningful within-patient improvements in symptom severity and health-related quality of life versus placebo, indicating mepolizumab provides substantial clinical benefits in very severe CRSwNP.

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) often have blocked or runny noses, and loss of sense of smell. They can also have sac-like growths in their nose called nasal polyps, which often require surgical removement. The symptoms of CRS with nasal polyps can affect quality of life. In a clinical study named SYNAPSE, a new treatment option called mepolizumab reduced the size and severity of nasal polyps in patients suffering from very severe CRS with nasal polyps, compared with placebo. Mepolizumab also reduced the need for nasal polyp surgery. The SYNAPSE study also measured if 1 year of mepolizumab treatment improved patients' symptoms and quality of life. This was evaluated by asking patients to complete two separate tasks. These tasks were rating symptoms on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and completing a quality of life questionnaire called SNOT-22. The objective of this analysis was to see if these questionnaires accurately assessed a patient's quality of life. The analysis also assessed how many patients had major improvements in their symptoms with mepolizumab. Overall, data from 407 patients in the SYNAPSE study was analyzed. Results showed that both the VAS and SNOT-22 questionnaires accurately captured CRS symptoms and quality of life. In addition, patients treated with mepolizumab for 1 year had improvements in quality of life compared with placebo. In conclusion, these findings suggest that the VAS and SNOT-22 questionnaires are appropriate evaluation tools for patients with very severe CRS with nasal polyps. The findings also show that mepolizumab treatment is beneficial for these patients.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): In-depth sinus surgery analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often require repeat sinus surgery. Mepolizumab reduced the need for sinus surgery in the SYNAPSE trial; this analysis sought to provide a more in-depth assessment of surgery endpoints in SYNAPSE. METHODS: SYNAPSE was a double-blind Phase III trial (NCT03085797) in adults with recurrent, refractory, severe, CRSwNP eligible for repeat sinus surgery despite standard of care treatments and previous surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Time to first inclusion on a waiting list for sinus surgery and time to first actual sinus surgery (both up to week 52) were assessed; the latter endpoint was also analyzed post hoc according to time since last sinus surgery before study screening and baseline blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Among 407 patients (mepolizumab: 206; placebo: 201), mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the risk of being included on a waiting list for sinus surgery (week 52 Kaplan-Meier probability estimate [95% confidence interval]: 13.9% [9.8%, 19.5%] vs. 28.5% [22.7%, 35.4%]). Mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the risk of sinus surgery irrespective of time (<3 vs ≥3 years) since patients' last sinus surgery prior to study screening (hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals] 0.28 [0.09, 0.84] and 0.50 [0.26, 0.98], respectively) and baseline blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced the risk of further sinus surgery in patients with recurrent, refractory, severe CRSwNP, irrespective of the patient baseline characteristics assessed.

Evaluating enrollment and outcome criteria in trials of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) generally involves intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) and saline irrigation, followed by short courses of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or surgery with postoperative medical therapy for patients who do not respond to INCS. However, both SCS use and surgery are associated with a range of adverse effects or complications, have a high recurrence rate, and are unsuitable for some patients. Biologics targeting the underlying pathophysiology are promising treatment alternatives for these patients. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are approved for use in patients with severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP. However, the lack of a consistent definition of severe CRSwNP makes the decision to initiate biologic treatment particularly complex. Furthermore, the position of each biologic in the overall management of CRSwNP remains to be clarified. DATA SOURCES: Publications reporting results of phase III trials of dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab in the treatment of CRSwNP. STUDY SELECTIONS: Randomized, controlled phase III trials of biologics approved for CRSwNP. RESULTS: These trials all used different enrollment criteria. We discuss the complexities of assessing CRSwNP disease severity and highlight how these impact comparisons of the populations and outcomes of the phase III biologic trials. CONCLUSION: To position biologic agents appropriately within the existing CRSwNP treatment paradigm, future trials will need to include comparable patient populations and standardized outcome measures. Such trials will help to ensure that biologic treatment is targeted appropriately to support optimal clinical outcomes.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Treatment efficacy by comorbidity and blood eosinophil count.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab reduced nasal polyp (NP) size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy of mepolizumab in patients from SYNAPSE grouped by comorbid asthma, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), and baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). METHODS: SYNAPSE, a randomized, double-blind, 52-week study (NCT03085797), included patients with severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with NP eligible for surgery despite intranasal corticosteroid treatment. Patients received 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo plus standard of care for 52 weeks. Coprimary end points were change in total endoscopic NP score (week 52) and nasal obstruction visual analog scale score (weeks 49-52). Subgroup analyses by comorbid asthma and AERD status, and post hoc by BEC, were exploratory. RESULTS: Analyses included 407 patients (289 with asthma; 108 with AERD; 371 and 278 with BEC counts ≥150 or ≥300 cells/µL, respectively). The proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1-point improvement from baseline in NP score was higher with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid diseases (asthma: 52.9% vs 29.5%; AERD: 51.1% vs 20.6%) and baseline BEC subgroups (<150 cells/µL: 55.0% vs 31.3%; ≥150 cells/µL: 49.5% vs 28.1%; <300 cells/µL: 50.7% vs 29.0%; ≥300 cells/µL: 50.4% vs 28.1%). A similar trend was observed in patients without comorbid asthma or AERD. More patients had more than 3-point improvement in nasal obstruction VAS score with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced polyp size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP regardless of the presence of comorbid asthma or AERD.

Estimation of a treatment policy estimand for time to event data using data collected post discontinuation of randomised treatment.

Discontinuation from randomised treatment is a common intercurrent event in clinical trials. When the target estimand uses a treatment policy strategy to deal with this intercurrent event, data after cessation of treatment is relevant to estimate the estimand and all efforts should be made to collect such data. Missing data may nevertheless occur due to participants withdrawing from the study and assumptions regarding the values for data that are missing are required for estimation. A missing-at-random assumption is commonly made in this setting, but it may not always be viewed as appropriate. Another potential approach is to assume missing values are similar to data collected after treatment discontinuation. This idea has been previously proposed in the context of recurrent event data. Here we extend this approach to time-to-event outcomes using the hazard function. We propose imputation models that allow for different hazard rates before and after treatment discontinuation and use the posttreatment discontinuation hazard to impute events for participants with missing follow-up periods due to study withdrawal. The imputation models are fitted as Andersen-Gill models. We illustrate the proposed methods with an example of a clinical trial in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Mepolizumab for Eosinophil-Associated COPD: Analysis of METREX and METREO.

Background: A pre-specified meta-analysis of individual patient data from the 52-week METREX and METREO trials, which investigated mepolizumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL (screening) or ≥300 cells/µL (prior year) and frequent exacerbations, enables more robust characterization of mepolizumab efficacy in COPD and exploration of the relationship between blood eosinophil count and treatment responses. Methods: In METREX (117106/NCT02105948) and METREO (117113/NCT02105961), randomized patients received mepolizumab or placebo added to existing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based triple maintenance therapy. The annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (primary endpoint) was compared between subcutaneous (SC) mepolizumab 100 mg versus placebo (primary comparison of interest) and all doses (100 mg and 300 mg SC) versus placebo in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL at screening or ≥300 cells/µL in the prior year. Secondary/other endpoints included time to first moderate/severe exacerbation, exacerbations leading to emergency department visit/hospitalization and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A predictive model of the relationship between screening blood eosinophil counts and exacerbation rates included data from all randomized patients. Results: In total, 1510 patients were randomized in METREX and METREO and 1136 patients were included in the pre-specified meta-analysis. From the meta-analysis, mepolizumab 100 mg SC significantly reduced annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus placebo by 18% (rate ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.71, 0.95; p=0.006) and delayed time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (hazard ratio: 0.80 [0.68, 0.94]; p=0.006). Mepolizumab 100 mg SC versus placebo numerically reduced exacerbations leading to ED visits/hospitalization and improved HRQoL. A modelling approach demonstrated increasing efficacy for moderate/severe exacerbations with increasing screening blood eosinophil count; this relationship was more pronounced for exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (post hoc). The all-doses comparison had similar results. Conclusion: Mepolizumab reduces exacerbations in patients with eosinophil-associated COPD. Results suggest that blood eosinophil counts (≥150 cells/µL at screening or ≥300 cells/µL in the prior year) allow for identification of patients with COPD who experience exacerbations while treated with maximal ICS-based triple maintenance therapy who are likely to benefit from mepolizumab.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps affects approximately 2-4% of the general population, and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with adverse effects. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in adults with recurrent, refractory severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. METHODS: SYNAPSE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 93 centres, mainly hospitals, in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent, refractory, severe, bilateral nasal polyp symptoms (nasal obstruction symptom visual analogue scale [VAS] score of >5), were eligible for repeat nasal surgery (overall symptoms VAS score >7 and endoscopic nasal polyps score of ≥5, with a minimum score of 2 in each nasal cavity) despite standard of care treatment, and had to have at least one nasal surgery in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using permuted block design, to receive either 100 mg mepolizumab subcutaneously or placebo once every 4 weeks, in addition to standard of care (mometasone furoate intranasal spray for at least 8 weeks before screening and during the study, saline nasal irrigations, systemic corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both), as required, for 52 weeks. Site staff, the central study team, and patients were masked to study treatment and absolute blood eosinophil counts. The coprimary endpoints were change from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp score at week 52 and in mean nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49-52, assessed in the intention-to-treat population (ITT). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03085797. FINDINGS: From May 25, 2017, to Dec 12, 2018, 854 patients were screened for eligibility. 414 patients were randomly assigned with 407 included in the ITT population; 206 received mepolizumab and 201 received placebo. Total endoscopic nasal polyp score significantly improved at week 52 from baseline with mepolizumab versus placebo (adjusted difference in medians -0·73, 95% CI -1·11 to -0·34; p<0·0001) and nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49-52 also significantly improved (-3·14, -4·09 to -2·18; p<0·0001). Adverse events considered related to study treatment were reported in 30 (15%) of 206 patients receiving mepolizumab and 19 (9%) of 201 receiving placebo. On-treatment serious adverse events occurred in 12 (6%) patients receiving mepolizumab and 13 (6%) receiving placebo; none were considered related to treatment in those receiving mepolizumab. One death was reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction; death occurred 99 days after the last dose) and was considered unrelated to the treatment. INTERPRETATION: Mepolizumab treatment improved nasal polyp size and nasal obstruction compared with placebo, with no new safety indications, in patients with recurrent, refractory severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. These findings suggest that mepolizumab provides an effective add-on treatment option to standard of care in this population. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Korean patients with severe eosinophilic asthma from the DREAM and MENSA studies.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma has been evaluated in a global clinical trial programme. This post hoc analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Korean patients. METHODS: Data from Korean patients in the Phase III, placebo-controlled, randomised DREAM (MEA112997/NCT01000506) and MENSA (MEA115588/ NCT01691521) studies were included. Patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab (DREAM: 75, 250 or 750 mg intravenously [IV]; MENSA: 75 mg IV or 100 mg subcutaneously [SC]), or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks (DREAM) or 32 weeks (MENSA). The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations. Secondary outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores (MENSA only). Blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and safety were assessed throughout. RESULTS: Reductions in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations were observed with the approved (100 mg SC) and bioequivalent (75 mg IV) doses of mepolizumab in Korean patients who participated in DREAM and MENSA. In MENSA, trends for improvements from baseline at week 32 in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (75 mg IV group), ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores (in both treatment groups) were seen versus placebo in Korean patients. Incidence of on-treatment adverse events was similar in Korean patients versus non-Korean patients as were observed reductions from baseline in BEC. CONCLUSION: Mepolizumab treatment provided clinical benefits for Korean patients with severe eosinophilic asthma; the safety profile is consistent with the overall population.

Treatment policy estimands for recurrent event data using data collected after cessation of randomised treatment.

In the past, many clinical trials have withdrawn subjects from the study when they prematurely stopped their randomised treatment and have therefore only collected 'on-treatment' data. Thus, analyses addressing a treatment policy estimand have been restricted to imputing missing data under assumptions drawn from these data only. Many confirmatory trials are now continuing to collect data from subjects in a study even after they have prematurely discontinued study treatment as this event is irrelevant for the purposes of a treatment policy estimand. However, despite efforts to keep subjects in a trial, some will still choose to withdraw. Recent publications for sensitivity analyses of recurrent event data have focused on the reference-based imputation methods commonly applied to continuous outcomes, where imputation for the missing data for one treatment arm is based on the observed outcomes in another arm. However, the existence of data from subjects who have prematurely discontinued treatment but remained in the study has now raised the opportunity to use this 'off-treatment' data to impute the missing data for subjects who withdraw, potentially allowing more plausible assumptions for the missing post-study-withdrawal data than reference-based approaches. In this paper, we introduce a new imputation method for recurrent event data in which the missing post-study-withdrawal event rate for a particular subject is assumed to reflect that observed from subjects during the off-treatment period. The method is illustrated in a trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) where the primary endpoint was the rate of exacerbations, analysed using a negative binomial model.

Mepolizumab for Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an eosinophilic phenotype may benefit from treatment with mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against interleukin-5. METHODS: We performed two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing mepolizumab (100 mg in METREX, 100 or 300 mg in METREO) with placebo, given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks for 52 weeks in patients with COPD who had a history of moderate or severe exacerbations while taking inhaled glucocorticoid-based triple maintenance therapy. In METREX, unselected patients in the modified intention-to-treat population with an eosinophilic phenotype were stratified according to blood eosinophil count (≥150 per cubic millimeter at screening or ≥300 per cubic millimeter during the previous year). In METREO, all patients had a blood eosinophil count of at least 150 per cubic millimeter at screening or at least 300 per cubic millimeter during the previous year. The primary end point was the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In METREX, the mean annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the modified intention-to-treat population with an eosinophilic phenotype (462 patients) was 1.40 per year in the mepolizumab group versus 1.71 per year in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.04); no significant between-group differences were found in the overall modified intention-to-treat population (836 patients) (rate ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; adjusted P>0.99). In METREO, the mean annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 1.19 per year in the 100-mg mepolizumab group, 1.27 per year in the 300-mg mepolizumab group, and 1.49 per year in the placebo group. The rate ratios for exacerbations in the 100-mg and 300-mg mepolizumab groups versus the placebo group were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.07) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; adjusted P=0.14), respectively. A greater effect of mepolizumab, as compared with placebo, on the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was found among patients with higher blood eosinophil counts at screening. The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab at a dose of 100 mg was associated with a lower annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations than placebo among patients with COPD and an eosinophilic phenotype. This finding suggests that eosinophilic airway inflammation contributes to COPD exacerbations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METREX and METREO ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02105948 and NCT02105961 .).

Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Japanese patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: The MENSA trial assessed the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. This report describes the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Japanese patients from MENSA. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of the Japanese subgroup from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, Phase III MENSA trial (NCT01691521). Patients ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (IV), 100 mg subcutaneously (SC), or placebo, every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. The primary endpoint was the annualized rate of exacerbations. Secondary and other endpoints included annualized rate of exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visit/hospitalization, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and eosinophil counts. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: In the Japanese subgroup (N = 50), the rate of clinically significant exacerbations was reduced by 90% (rate ratio [RR]: 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.57; P = 0.010) with mepolizumab IV and 62% (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.12-1.18; P = 0.094) with mepolizumab SC, versus placebo. No exacerbations requiring ED visit/hospitalization were reported with mepolizumab IV; exacerbations were reduced by 73% (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.06-1.29; P = 0.102) with mepolizumab SC versus placebo. Compared with placebo, mepolizumab IV and SC numerically increased morning PEF from baseline by 40 L/min and 13 L/min, improved quality of life by greater than the minimal clinically important difference (SGRQ: 9.5 [P = 0.083] and 7.9 [P = 0.171] points) and reduced eosinophil counts. AE incidence was similar between treatments. Results were broadly consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab was efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, producing similar responses to the overall MENSA population.

Meta-analysis of asthma-related hospitalization in mepolizumab studies of severe eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that mepolizumab can reduce the frequency of clinically significant exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, compared with placebo. However, important events such as hospitalizations and emergency room visits are rare and difficult to characterize in single studies. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare hospitalization or hospitalization and/or emergency room visit rates in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab or placebo in addition to standard of care for at least 24 weeks. METHODS: This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. PubMed and the GSK Clinical Study Register were searched for suitable studies. The primary end points were the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization and the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room visit. The proportion of patients with 1 or more event was also assessed. All mepolizumab doses were combined and individual patient-level data were analyzed. RESULTS: Four studies (n = 1388) were eligible for inclusion. Mepolizumab significantly reduced the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization (relative rate, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .004) and hospitalization/emergency room visit (relative rate, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.73; P < .001) versus placebo. Significant reductions of 45% and 38% were also observed for the proportion of patients experiencing 1 or more hospitalization and hospitalization and/or emergency room visit, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab approximately halved exacerbations requiring hospitalization and/or emergency room visits compared with placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. This treatment addresses a key outcome in a patient population with a high unmet need (GSK Study 204664).

Severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab stratified by baseline eosinophil thresholds: a secondary analysis of the DREAM and MENSA studies.

BACKGROUND: Findings from previous studies showed that mepolizumab significantly reduces the rate of exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. To assess the relationship between baseline blood eosinophil counts and efficacy of mepolizumab we did a secondary analysis of data from two studies, stratifying patients by different baseline blood eosinophil thresholds. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of data, which was completed on Sept 25, 2015, from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 32 weeks duration (NCT01000506 [DREAM] and NCT01691521 [MENSA]) done between 2009 and 2014. In these studies, mepolizumab ( DREAM: 75 mg, 250 mg, or 750 mg intravenously; MENSA: 75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously) versus placebo was given at 4-week intervals in addition to standard care (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus ≥1 additional controller with or without daily oral corticosteroids) to patients aged 12 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma, a history of at least two exacerbations in the previous year that required systemic corticosteroid treatment, and evidence of eosinophilic airway inflammation. The primary endpoint in both studies was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations (defined as worsening of asthma that required the use of systemic corticosteroids, or admission to hospital, or an emergency-room visit, or a combination of these occurrences). In our analysis, the primary outcome was the annualised rate of exacerbations in patients stratified by baseline eosinophil counts (≥150 cells per µL, ≥300 cells per µL, ≥400 cells per µL, and ≥500 cells per µL) and baseline blood eosinophil ranges (<150 cells per µL, ≥150 cells per µL to <300 cells per µL, ≥300 cells per µL to <500 cells per µL, and ≥500 cells per µL). We based our analysis on the intention-to-treat populations of the two original studies, and all mepolizumab doses were combined for analysis. FINDINGS: Of 1192 patients, 846 received mepolizumab and 346 received placebo. The overall rate of mean exacerbations per person per year was reduced from 1·91 with placebo to 1·01 with mepolizumab (47% reduction; rate ratio [RR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·62; p<0·0001). The exacerbation rate reduction with mepolizumab versus placebo increased progressively from 52%; 0·48, 0·39-0·58) in patients with a baseline blood eosinophil count of at least 150 cells per µL to 70%; 0·30, 0·23-0·40]) in patients with a baseline count of at least 500 cells per µL. At a baseline count less than 150 cells per µL, predicted efficacy of mepolizumab was reduced. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis has shown a close relationship between baseline blood eosinophil count and clinical efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of exacerbations. We noted clinically relevant reductions in exacerbation frequency in patients with a count of 150 cells per µL or more at baseline. The use of this baseline biomarker will help to select patients who are likely to achieve important asthma outcomes with mepolizumab. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Eltrombopag with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized phase I study.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia could avoid chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The safety and maximum tolerated dose of eltrombopag, an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist, with gemcitabine-based therapy was evaluated. Patients with advanced solid tumors and platelets ≤300 × 10(9) /L receiving gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin (Group A) or gemcitabine monotherapy (Group B) were randomized 3:1 to receive eltrombopag or placebo at a starting dose of 100 mg daily administered on days -5 to -1 and days 2-6 starting from cycle 2 of treatment. Nineteen patients (Group A, n = 9; Group B, n = 10) received eltrombopag 100 mg and seven (Group A, n = 3; Group B, n = 4) received matching placebo. Nine eltrombopag patients in Group A and eight in Group B had 38 and 54 occurrences of platelet counts ≥400 × 10(9) /L, respectively. Mean platelet nadirs across cycles 2-6 were 115 × 10(9) /L and 143 × 10(9) /L for eltrombopag-treated patients versus 53 × 10(9) /L and 103 × 10(9) /L for placebo-treated patients in Groups A and B, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported for eltrombopag; however, due to several occurrences of thrombocytosis, a decision was made not to dose-escalate eltrombopag to >100 mg daily. In Groups A and B, 14% of eltrombopag versus 50% of placebo patients required chemotherapy dose reductions and/or delays for any reason across cycles 3-6. Eltrombopag 100 mg once daily administered 5 days before and after day 1 of chemotherapy was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile, and will be further tested in a phase II trial. Fewer patients receiving eltrombopag required chemotherapy dose delays and/or reductions compared with those receiving placebo.

Efficacy of eltrombopag in management of bleeding symptoms associated with chronic immune thrombocytopenia.

Bleeding is of particular clinical importance in the management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), which involves impaired platelet production and accelerated destruction. We report the first comprehensive analysis of the impact of eltrombopag on bleeding in five clinical studies of adult chronic ITP: two 6-week phase 2 (TRA100773A) and phase 3 (TRA100773B) studies; a 6-month phase 3 study (RAISE); a phase 2 repeat-dose study (REPEAT); and a phase 3 extension study (EXTEND). Bleeding was assessed using the World Health Organization Bleeding Scale and categorized as no bleeding (grade 0), any bleeding (grades 1-4), and clinically significant bleeding (grades 2-4). Bleeding was also assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. Across all studies, bleeding at baseline ranged from 50 to 73% for eltrombopag-treated patients; by week 2, bleeding had decreased, ranging from 26 to 39%. This trend was maintained throughout treatment. Similar results were observed for clinically significant bleeding. No such trend was seen in placebo-treated patients for any bleeding or clinically significant bleeding. For TRA100773B and RAISE, the odds of any bleeding across the entire treatment period were 51 and 76% lower for eltrombopag-treated versus placebo-treated patients (P=0.021, P<0.001). The odds of clinically significant bleeding in RAISE were 65% lower (P<0.001). In conclusion, analysis of prospective data from five clinical studies demonstrates that eltrombopag significantly reduces bleeding in adult patients with chronic ITP.

Repeated short-term use of eltrombopag in patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).

Eltrombopag is a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist that stimulates platelet production and increases platelet counts in patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). This open-label, single-arm study evaluated consistency of response and safety following repeated intermittent dosing of eltrombopag 50 mg daily over 3 cycles (1 cycle = up to 6 weeks on therapy followed by up to 4 weeks off therapy). The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with a response (platelet count ≥50 × 10(9) /l and ≥2× baseline) in Cycle 1 who subsequently responded in Cycle 2 or 3. Fifty-two of 65 evaluable patients (80%) responded in Cycle 1; these responding patients comprised the primary analysis population. Of these, 45/52 (87%) responded in Cycle 2 or 3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-94%] and 34/48 (71%; 95% CI, 56-83%) responded in both Cycles 2 and 3. Time to response was consistent, with >50% of responders responding by Day 8 in each cycle. Bleeding rates relative to baseline decreased by approximately 50% during each treatment cycle. The frequency or severity of adverse events, most commonly headache, did not increase over successive cycles. If a chronic ITP patient not requiring consistent therapy responds to short-term eltrombopag, then subsequent courses of eltrombopag, as needed, are likely to be safe and effective.

Eltrombopag for management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia (RAISE): a 6-month, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Eltrombopag is an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist for the treatment of thrombocytopenia. We aimed to compare the response to once daily eltrombopag versus placebo in patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia during a 6-month period. METHODS: We undertook a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adults with previously treated immune thrombocytopenia of more than 6 months' duration who had baseline platelet counts lower than 30,000 per µL. Patients were randomly allocated (in a 2:1 ratio) treatment with local standard of care plus 50 mg eltrombopag or matching placebo once daily for 6 months. Randomisation was done centrally with a computer-generated randomisation schedule and was stratified by baseline platelet count (≤ 15,000 per µL), use of treatment for immune thrombocytopenia, and splenectomy status. Patients, investigators, and those assessing data were masked to allocation. Dose modifications were made on the basis of platelet response. Patients were assessed for response to treatment (defined as a platelet count of 50,000-400,000 per µL) weekly during the first 6 weeks and at least once every 4 weeks thereafter; the primary endpoint was the odds of response to eltrombopag versus placebo. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00370331. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2006, and July 31, 2007, 197 patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (135 eltrombopag, 62 placebo). 106 (79%) patients in the eltrombopag group responded to treatment at least once during the study, compared with 17 (28%) patients in the placebo group. The odds of responding were greater in patients in the eltrombopag group compared with those in the placebo group throughout the 6-month treatment period (odds ratio 8·2, 99% CI 3·59-18·73; p<0·0001). 37 (59%) patients receiving eltrombopag reduced concomitant treatment versus ten (32%) patients receiving placebo (p=0·016). 24 (18%) patients receiving eltrombopag needed rescue treatment compared with 25 (40%) patients receiving placebo (p=0·001). Three (2%) patients receiving eltrombopag had thromboembolic events compared with none in patients on placebo. Nine (7%) eltrombopag-treated patients and two (3%) in the placebo group had mild increases in alanine aminotransferase concentration, and five (4%) eltrombopag-treated patients (vs none allocated to placebo) had increases in total bilirubin. Four (7%) patients taking placebo had serious bleeding events, compared with one (<1%) patient treated with eltrombopag. INTERPRETATION: Eltrombopag is effective for management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia, and could be particularly beneficial for patients who have not responded to splenectomy or previous treatment. These benefits should be balanced with the potential risks associated with eltrombopag treatment. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.