Benralizumab efficacy and safety in severe asthma: A randomized trial in Asia.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is indicated as add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled, severe eosinophilic asthma; it has not yet been evaluated in a large Asian population with asthma in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma in Asia. METHODS: MIRACLE (NCT03186209) was a randomized, Phase 3 study in China, South Korea, and the Philippines. Patients aged 12-75 years with severe asthma receiving medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonists, stratified (2:1) by baseline blood eosinophil count (bEOS) (≥300/µL; <300/µL), were randomized (1:1) to benralizumab 30 mg or placebo. Endpoints included annual asthma exacerbation rate (AAER; primary endpoint), change from baseline at Week 48 in pre-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (pre-BD FEV1) and total asthma symptom score (TASS). Safety was evaluated ≤ Week 56. RESULTS: Of 695 patients randomized, 473 had baseline bEOS ≥300/µL (benralizumab n = 236; placebo n = 237). In this population, benralizumab significantly reduced AAER by 74% (rate ratio 0.26 [95% CI 0.19, 0.36], p < 0.0001) and significantly improved pre-BD FEV1 (least squares difference [LSD] 0.25 L [95% CI 0.17, 0.34], p < 0.0001) and TASS (LSD -0.25 [-0.45, -0.05], p = 0.0126) versus placebo. In patients with baseline bEOS <300/µL, there were numerical improvements in AAER, pre-BD FEV1, and TASS with benralizumab versus placebo. The frequency of adverse events was similar for benralizumab (76%) and placebo (80%) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: MIRACLE data reinforces the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma in an Asian population, consistent with the global Phase 3 results.

Vasopressor Discontinuation Order in the Recovery Phase of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

@#BACKGROUND: Septic shock causes life threatening organ dysfunction needing vasopressor despite adequate fluid resuscitation. Numerous studies and meta-analysis have proven norepinephrine as the initial vasopressor of choice in septic shock with vasopressin as add-on. Although guidelines have established the goal monitoring response in septic shock, optimal approach in discontinuation of the vasopressors in the recovery phase of septic shock remains limited. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing incidence of hypotension within 24 hours of discontinuing norepinephrine first versus vasopressin. Three reviewers independently selected studies, assessed their quality, and extracted the following data: the number and characteristics of patients enrolled, inclusion and exclusion criteria for each study, the description of interventions (discontinuing norepinephrine first versus discontinuing vasopressin first) and outcomes (incidence of hypotension within 24 hours). RESULTS: Seven retrospective cohort studies and one prospective randomized control trial were included. Compared with norepinephrine, risk of hypotension is higher when vasopressin is discontinued first among patients in the recovery phase of septic shock (RR 2.06; 95% CI [1.11,3.82]; I 2 91%). Results were consistent in the subgroup analysis after excluding abstract-only and poor-quality studies (RR 1.73; 95% CI [0.74, 4.03]; I 2 93%). There is no difference in ICU (RR 0.97; 95% CI [0.71, 1.32]; I 2 38%) and in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI [0.66, 1.16]; I 2 41%) between the two vasopressor weaning strategies. Finally ICU length of stay was reported on 5 studies with no significant difference between the two strategies. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, there is increased risk of hypotension when vasopressin is discontinued first versus norepinephrine.