Benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma by previous biologic use and key clinical subgroups: real-world XALOC-1 programme.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal Phase 3 trials and real-world studies have demonstrated benralizumab's overall efficacy and safety in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Additional large-cohort data are needed to confirm its real-world effectiveness in SEA according to previous biologic use and key baseline characteristics important for treatment selection. METHODS: XALOC-1 is a large, multinational, retrospective, observational, real-world study programme of benralizumab in adults with SEA. This 48-week integrated analysis assessed annualised exacerbation rate (AER), maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use, asthma symptom control and lung function during a 12-month baseline period and up to 48 weeks after benralizumab initiation. Subgroup analyses were based on previous biologic use and key baseline clinical characteristics (mOCS use, blood eosinophil count, exacerbation history, age at asthma diagnosis, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level and presence of atopy and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps). RESULTS: Of 1002 patients analysed, 380 were biologic-experienced. At Week 48, 71.3% were exacerbation-free (versus 17.2% at baseline); relative reduction in AER was 82.7% overall and 72.9% in biologic-experienced patients; rates were maintained across all key clinical characteristic subgroups. Of patients using mOCS at baseline (n=274), 47.4% (130/274) eliminated their use by Week 48; the mean reduction from baseline in daily dose was 51.2% and, notably, 34.9% in biologic-experienced patients (n=115). Clinically significant improvements in asthma symptom control and lung function were observed. CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world programme, SEA patients treated with benralizumab had substantial improvements in clinical outcomes irrespective of previous biologic use and key clinical characteristics important to therapeutic decision-making in clinical practice.

Use of CompEx in eosinophilic patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma on benralizumab.

Background: CompEx Asthma, a composite end-point for asthma exacerbations, captures clinically relevant, diary-based acute worsening events (AWEs) (defined as deterioration in daily peak expiratory flow concurrent with deterioration in asthma symptoms and/or rescue therapy use) and severe exacerbations (SevEx) (defined by American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines). We hypothesised that CompEx and SevEx would show similar benralizumab treatment effects and correlations to blood eosinophil counts in patients with severe asthma. Methods: This post hoc analysis of pooled 12-month data from two phase 3 studies included patients aged ≥16 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma who were randomised to benralizumab 30 mg or placebo. Annualised event rates were analysed using a negative binomial model. The impact of blood eosinophil count on treatment effect was assessed. Results: Among patients with a blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL-1 (n=913), benralizumab reduced the annualised event rate versus placebo for CompEx (1.57 versus 2.57; risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, p<0.001), SevEx (0.94 versus 1.55; risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70, p<0.001) and AWE (0.92 versus 1.57; risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.72, p<0.001), with greater treatment effects observed for higher blood eosinophil counts. In patients with blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL-1, benralizumab was associated with shorter median event duration (CompEx: 10.5 days versus 17.0 days; SevEx: 10.0 days versus 15.0 days; AWE: 5.0 days versus 6.0 days). Conclusions: Benralizumab reduced the risk of CompEx events with treatment effects similar to those for SevEx and AWEs across a range of blood eosinophil counts. Use of CompEx supports the evaluation of benralizumab and other novel drugs in clinical studies.

The Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability of Aclidinium Bromide 400 µg Administered by Inhalation as Single and Multiple (Twice Daily) Doses in Healthy Chinese Participants.

Purpose: To date, aclidinium pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have focused on Caucasian populations, and no data are available for Chinese populations. We aimed to characterize the PK and safety profile of aclidinium and its metabolites (LAS34823 and LAS34850) following single and multiple (twice-daily; BID) dosing in healthy Chinese participants, and to compare PK data between Chinese and Caucasian populations. Materials and methods: In this Phase I, open-label study (NCT03276052), healthy participants from a single site in China received aclidinium bromide 400 µg via a dry powder inhaler. The Day 1 single dose was followed by a washout period of 96 hours. On Days 5 through 8, participants received BID doses. Results: Twenty healthy Chinese participants, aged 18-45 years, were enrolled. Aclidinium absorption was rapid (median time to maximum concentration [tmax] 0.08 hours post-dose following single/multiple doses). LAS34823 had a similar median tmax of 0.08 hours, whereas LAS34850 tmax occurred later (median 2.50-3.00 hours). Aclidinium, LAS34823, and LAS34850 concentrations declined in a bi-phasic manner; geometric mean half-life was 13.5 hours (single dosing) and 21.4 hours (multiple dosing), while steady state was generally achieved after 5 days' continuous dosing. Area under the concentration-time curve during a dosage interval (AUCτ) metabolite to parent ratios for LAS34823 were 2.6 (Day 1) and 2.9 (Day 9), while LAS34850 had ratios of 136.0 and 94.8, respectively. Aclidinium accumulation occurred after 5 days of BID dosing (LS mean accumulation ratio for AUCτ Day 9/Day 1: 214.1% [90% CI, 176.5, 259.6]); LAS34823 accumulation was similar, while LAS34850 accumulation was lower. Between-participant exposure variability was moderate to high for aclidinium and LAS34823, and low for LAS34850. Conclusion: Single and multiple doses of aclidinium were well tolerated in healthy Chinese participants. The safety profile of and exposure to aclidinium was consistent with previous studies conducted in Caucasian populations.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies and aclidinium versus placebo in Chinese and other Asian patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The AVANT Phase 3 study.

AVANT was a Phase 3, 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol 400 µg/12 µg combination vs monotherapies and aclidinium vs placebo (1:1:1:1) in Asian patients (∼70% of whom were Chinese) with moderate-to-severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Endpoints were analyzed hierarchically to incorporate type I error control. At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol demonstrated improvements from baseline in 1-h morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) vs aclidinium (least squares [LS] mean 92 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] 60, 124 mL; p < 0.001), and in trough FEV1 vs formoterol (LS mean 85 mL; 95% CI 53, 117 mL; p < 0.001). Furthermore, aclidinium provided improvements in trough FEV1 vs placebo (LS mean 134 mL; 95% CI 103, 166 mL; p < 0.001). There was an improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score at Week 24 for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean 0.8; 95% CI 0.2, 1.3; p = 0.005) but not for aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean 0.4; 95% CI -0.1, 1.0; p = 0.132). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores occurred for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean -4.0; 95% CI -6.7, -1.4; p = 0.003) and aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean -2.9; 95% CI -5.5, -0.3; p = 0.031). Aclidinium/formoterol and aclidinium were well tolerated and safety findings were consistent with known profiles; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (aclidinium/formoterol: 54.8%; aclidinium: 47.4%; placebo: 53.9%), serious AEs (7.2, 7.9, and 7.8%, respectively), and AEs leading to discontinuation of study medication (2.3, 1.5, and 2.2%, respectively) were similar between groups.

Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 52-week results of two randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Lebrikizumab is a novel, high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-13. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab monotherapy in adolescent and adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) over 52 weeks of treatment in ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967). METHODS: Patients who responded to lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) at the end of the 16-week induction period were re-randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive lebrikizumab Q2W, lebrikizumab 250 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or placebo Q2W (lebrikizumab withdrawal) for 36 additional weeks. Response at week 16 was defined as achieving a 75% reduction in Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI 75) or an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, with a ≥ 2-point improvement and no rescue medication use. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data. Intermittent use of topical therapy was permitted during the maintenance period. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, an IGA of 0 or 1 with a ≥ 2 point improvement was maintained by 71.2% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q2W, 76.9% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q4W and 47.9% of patients in the lebrikizumab withdrawal arm. EASI 75 was maintained by 78.4% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q2W, 81.7% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q4W and 66.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab withdrawal arm at week 52. Across treatment arms, proportions of patients using any rescue therapy were 14.0% (ADvocate1) and 16.4% (ADvocate2). During the combined induction and maintenance periods of ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, 63.0% of lebrikizumab-treated patients reported any treatment emergent adverse event, with most events (93.1%) being mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: After a 16-week induction period with lebrikizumab Q2W, lebrikizumab Q2W and Q4W maintained similar improvement of the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previously published data.

Severe Asthma Standard-of-Care Background Medication Reduction With Benralizumab: ANDHI in Practice Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The phase IIIb, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled ANDHI double-blind (DB) study extended understanding of the efficacy of benralizumab for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. Patients from ANDHI DB could join the 56-week ANDHI in Practice (IP) single-arm, open-label extension substudy. OBJECTIVE: Assess potential for standard-of-care background medication reductions while maintaining asthma control with benralizumab. METHODS: Following ANDHI DB completion, eligible adults were enrolled in ANDHI IP. After an 8-week run-in with benralizumab, there were 5 visits to potentially reduce background asthma medications for patients achieving and maintaining protocol-defined asthma control with benralizumab. Main outcome measures for non-oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent patients were the proportions with at least 1 background medication reduction (ie, lower inhaled corticosteroid dose, background medication discontinuation) and the number of adapted Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step reductions at end of treatment (EOT). Main outcomes for OCS-dependent patients were reductions in daily OCS dosage and proportion achieving OCS dosage of 5 mg or lower at EOT. RESULTS: For non-OCS-dependent patients, 53.3% (n = 208 of 390) achieved at least 1 background medication reduction, increasing to 72.6% (n = 130 of 179) for patients who maintained protocol-defined asthma control at EOT. A total of 41.9% (n = 163 of 389) achieved at least 1 adapted GINA step reduction, increasing to 61.8% (n = 110 of 178) for patients with protocol-defined EOT asthma control. At ANDHI IP baseline, OCS dosages were 5 mg or lower for 40.4% (n = 40 of 99) of OCS-dependent patients. Of OCS-dependent patients, 50.5% (n = 50 of 99) eliminated OCS and 74.7% (n = 74 of 99) achieved dosages of 5 mg or lower at EOT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate benralizumab's ability to improve asthma control, thereby allowing background medication reduction.

Asthma exacerbations are associated with a decline in lung function: a longitudinal population-based study.

RATIONALE: Progressive lung function (LF) decline in patients with asthma contributes to worse outcomes. Asthma exacerbations are thought to contribute to this decline; however, evidence is limited with mixed results. METHODS: This historical cohort study of a broad asthma patient population in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, examined asthma patients with 3+eligible post-18th birthday peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) records (primary analysis) or records of forced expiratory flow in 1 s (FEV1) (sensitivity analysis). Adjusted linear growth models tested the association between mean annual exacerbation rate (AER) and LF trajectory. RESULTS: We studied 1 09 182 patients with follow-up ranging from 5 to 50 years, of which 75 280 had data for all variables included in the adjusted analyses. For each additional exacerbation, an estimated additional -1.34 L/min PEF per year (95% CI -1.23 to -1.50) were lost. Patients with AERs >2/year and aged 18-24 years at baseline lost an additional -5.95 L/min PEF/year (95% CI -8.63 to -3.28) compared with those with AER 0. These differences in the rate of LF decline between AER groups became progressively smaller as age at baseline increased. The results using FEV1 were consistent with the above. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the largest nationwide cohort of its kind and demonstrates that asthma exacerbations are associated with faster LF decline. This was more prominent in younger patients but was evident in older patients when it was related to lower starting LF, suggesting a persistent deteriorating phenotype that develops in adulthood over time. Earlier intervention with appropriate management in younger patients with asthma could be of value to prevent excessive LF decline.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy.

Background: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics. Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons. Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147). Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.

Adrenal function recovery after durable oral corticosteroid sparing with benralizumab in the PONENTE study.

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) dependence among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma can cause adverse outcomes, including adrenal insufficiency. PONENTE's OCS reduction phase showed that, following benralizumab initiation, 91.5% of patients eliminated corticosteroids or achieved a final dosage ≤5 mg·day-1 (median (range) 0.0 (0.0-40.0) mg). METHODS: The maintenance phase assessed the durability of corticosteroid reduction and further adrenal function recovery. For ∼6 months, patients continued benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks without corticosteroids or with the final dosage achieved during the reduction phase. Investigators could prescribe corticosteroids for asthma exacerbations or increase daily dosages for asthma control deteriorations. Outcomes included changes in daily OCS dosage, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-6 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), as well as adrenal status, asthma exacerbations and adverse events. RESULTS: 598 patients entered PONENTE; 563 (94.1%) completed the reduction phase and entered the maintenance phase. From the end of reduction to the end of maintenance, the median (range) OCS dosage was unchanged (0.0 (0.0-40.0) mg), 3.2% (n=18/563) of patients experienced daily dosage increases, the mean ACQ-6 score decreased from 1.26 to 1.18 and 84.5% (n=476/563) of patients were exacerbation free. The mean SGRQ improvement (-19.65 points) from baseline to the end of maintenance indicated substantial quality-of-life improvements. Of patients entering the maintenance phase with adrenal insufficiency, 32.4% (n=104/321) demonstrated an improvement in adrenal function. Adverse events were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients successfully maintained maximal OCS reduction while achieving improved asthma control with few exacerbations and maintaining or recovering adrenal function.

Differential Outcomes Following 4 Weeks of Aclidinium/Formoterol in Patients with COPD: A Reanalysis of the ACTIVATE Study.

Rationale: It is difficult to predict the effects of long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) on lung function, exercise capacity and physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Therefore, the multidimensional response to LABD was profiled in COPD patients participating in the ACTIVATE study and randomized to LABD. Methods: In the ACTIVATE study, patients were randomized to aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) or placebo for four weeks. The primary outcomes included (1) lung function as measured by functional residual capacity (FRC), residual volume (RV), and spirometric outcomes; (2) exercise performance as measured by a constant work rate cycle ergometry test (CWRT); and (3) physical activity (PA) using an activity monitor. Self-organizing maps (SOMs) were used to create an ordered representation of the patients who were randomly assigned to four weeks of AB/FF and cluster them into different outcome groups. Results: A total of 250 patients were randomized to AB/FF (n = 126) or placebo (n = 124). Patients in the AB/FF group (39.6% women) had moderate-to-severe COPD, static hyperinflation (FRC: 151.4 (27.7)% predicted) and preserved exercise capacity. Six clusters with differential outcomes were identified. Patients in clusters 1 and 2 had significant improvements in lung function compared to the remaining AB/FF-treated patients. Patients in clusters 1 and 3 had significant improvements in CWRT time, and patients in clusters 2, 3 and 6 had significant improvements in PA compared to the remaining AB/FF-treated patients. Conclusion: Individual responses to 4 weeks of AB/FF-treatment in COPD are differential and the degree of change differs across domains of lung function, exercise capacity and PA. These results indicate that clinical response to LABD therapy is difficult to predict and is non-linear, and show doctors that it is important to look at multiple outcomes simultaneously when evaluating the clinical response to LABD therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: The original ACTIVATE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT02424344.

An Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Aclidinium/Formoterol Fixed-Dose Combination Administered in Chinese Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate in patients from China with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this open-label, repeat-dose, 5-day pharmacokinetic study (NCT03276078) of inhaled aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate 400/12 µg twice daily, plasma concentrations of aclidinium, formoterol, and two aclidinium metabolites (LAS34823, LAS34850) were assessed (days 1 and 5). Adverse event (AE) data were collected. RESULTS: Twenty patients (15 [75%] males) with a mean age of 59.2 years were included. Median (range) time to maximum concentration on days 1 and 5 was 0.08 (0.08-0.50) and 0.08 (0.08-0.50) h, respectively, for aclidinium; and 1.00 (0.08-3.00) and 0.08 (0.08-1.50) h, respectively, for formoterol. Mean elimination half-life and accumulation ratio for area under the concentration-time curve during a dosage interval (AUCτ) was 19.42 h and 2.0, respectively, for aclidinium; and 14.06 h and 1.4, respectively, for formoterol. Steady-state maximum concentration (Cmax,ss) and AUCτ on day 5 were 60.86 pg/mL and 168.80 h·pg/mL, respectively, for aclidinium; and 6.47 pg/mL and 31.98 h·pg/mL, respectively, for formoterol. Aclidinium produced high coefficients of variation (day 1: AUCτ 79.0%, Cmax 84.5%; day 5: AUCτ 82.2%, Cmax 150.0%). Few AEs were reported, typically one per patient. One patient discontinued due to a serious AE (considered possibly unrelated to treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice daily was well-tolerated in patients from China with moderate-to-severe COPD. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03276078.

Benralizumab Effectiveness in Severe Asthma Is Independent of Previous Biologic Use.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an IL-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic mAb that depletes eosinophils, reducing exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, and improves asthma control for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Data on response in patients previously treated with other biologic therapies are limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world clinical outcomes with benralizumab for patients with and without prior biologic use for uncontrolled SEA. METHODS: This retrospective study compared clinical outcomes before and after benralizumab initiation in adults with uncontrolled SEA with 3 or more asthma exacerbations in the previous 12 months or on maintenance OCS treatment. Outcomes included exacerbations, OCS use, patient-reported outcomes, and health care resource utilization, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: In all, 208 patients were enrolled, including 90 (43.3%) with previous experience with an alternate biologic for SEA. Benralizumab led to an 81% reduction in exacerbation rate, with 48% of patients with previous exacerbations experiencing none after 48 weeks. Overall, 67% of patients requiring baseline maintenance OCS achieved greater than or equal to 50% reduction in daily OCS dosage, and 53% eliminated maintenance OCS. Clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes were seen, with response at 4 weeks predicting longer-term benefits. Health care resource utilization also decreased. Improvements were observed irrespective of previous biologic experience, fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentrations, atopic status, or other baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter real-world setting, patients with uncontrolled SEA achieved substantial improvements in all clinical outcome measures with benralizumab irrespective of previous biologic use, atopic status, or baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentration.

Real World Biologic Use and Switch Patterns in Severe Asthma: Data from the International Severe Asthma Registry and the US CHRONICLE Study.

INTRODUCTION: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors. METHODS: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015-2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018-2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups. RESULTS: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti-IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti-IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization. CONCLUSION: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.

Oral corticosteroid elimination via a personalised reduction algorithm in adults with severe, eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (PONENTE): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: No consensus exists on how to reduce oral corticosteroids after the initiation of biologics in severe asthma. The PONENTE trial evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a rapid, individualised steroid-reduction algorithm, including adrenal insufficiency monitoring, after benralizumab initiation. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, single-arm study was done at 138 clinical asthma treatment centres across 17 countries. We enrolled adult patients (age ≥18 years) with severe, eosinophilic asthma (blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells per µL at enrolment or ≥300 cells per µL in the previous year) requiring maintenance oral corticosteroids for at least 3 months preceding enrolment. Patients received benralizumab 30 mg (subcutaneous injection) every 4 weeks for three doses, then every 8 weeks thereafter. The oral corticosteroid reduction phase began at week 4 with daily oral corticosteroid dosages reduced by 1-5 mg every 1-4 weeks depending on the starting dosage, asthma control, and adrenal function status. Adrenal function was assessed with an early morning serum cortisol measurement, followed by adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation when required, once patients achieved a daily oral corticosteroid dosage of 5 mg/day for 4 weeks. Repeat cortisol measurements were taken for patients with evidence of adrenal insufficiency at first testing. Asthma control was assessed with the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) weekly throughout the induction and oral corticosteroid reduction phases. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients eliminating daily oral corticosteroids, sustained for at least 4 weeks, and the percentage achieving elimination or a daily prednisone or prednisolone dosage of 5 mg or less, for at least 4 weeks, if the reason for no further reduction was adrenal insufficiency. Safety and efficacy analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of benralizumab and were descriptive. We present results after the oral corticosteroid reduction phase; a maintenance phase is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03557307. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2018, and Sept 5, 2020, of 705 patients assessed for eligibility, 598 were recruited and all received at least one dose of benralizumab. Overall, 376 (62·88%, 95% CI 58·86-66·76) of 598 patients eliminated oral corticosteroids and 490 (81·94%, 78·62-84·94) of 598 eliminated use or achieved a dosage of 5 mg or less if the reason for stopping the reduction was adrenal insufficiency. Subgroup analysis showed that dosage reductions were achieved irrespective of baseline eosinophil count, baseline oral corticosteroid dosage, or oral corticosteroid treatment duration. Adrenal insufficiency was detected in 321 (60%) of 533 patients at first assessment and in 205 (38%) of 533 patients 2-3 months later. The safety profile was consistent with previous experience. Most patients (448 [75%] of 598) had no asthma exacerbations during the oral corticosteroid reduction phase with an annualised exacerbation rate of 0·63. Of 598 patients, 38 (6%) experienced a total of 46 exacerbations resulting in emergency department or urgent care visits or hospitalisations. INTERPRETATION: Despite a high prevalence of adrenal insufficiency, most patients with eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab achieved elimination of oral corticosteroids or maximal possible reduction using a personalised dosage-reduction algorithm. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Benralizumab improves symptoms of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma with a diagnosis of nasal polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Clinically meaningful improvement in the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) was observed in patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma, and nasal polyposis (NP) treated with benralizumab in the ANDHI trial. A post hoc assessment of the effects of benralizumab on SNOT-22 response and asthma efficacy measures in these patients was conducted for further characterization of the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma and NP. METHODS: Adults with severe, eosinophilic asthma who had experienced ≥2 prior-year exacerbations despite high-dosage inhaled corticosteroid plus additional controller[s] were randomized to 24 weeks of benralizumab or placebo. Patients with physician-diagnosed chronic rhinosinusitis with NP of any severity ongoing at baseline who consented to participate were included in the current ANDHI NP substudy population. Effect on NP symptoms was assessed by the SNOT-22, with an improvement of at least 8.9 defined as clinically significant (responder). Effects on chronic asthma outcomes were assessed by means of annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AER), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 ), and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6). All p-values were nominal. RESULTS: Of the ANDHI population (n = 656), 23% (n = 153) participated in the NP substudy (n = 96 benralizumab; n = 57 placebo). Patients were 50% female, with mean age of 53 years, had prior-year AER = 3.3; mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1  = 55% predicted; and median blood eosinophil count â€‹= 510 cells/µl. For patients with high baseline SNOT-22 scores (>30), benralizumab treatment improved symptoms of NP as measured by SNOT-22 from baseline to Week 24 compared with placebo (Week 24: -10.44 [p = .0176]). Percentage of responders to SNOT-22 was greater for benralizumab vs. placebo (71.3% vs. 45.5%; p = .0036), and effect was enhanced for patients with high baseline SNOT-22 scores (>30). A 69% reduction vs. placebo in annualized AER (0.77 vs. 2.47; p < .0001) and greater clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in SGRQ total score (-16.7), FEV1 (+0.32 L), and ACQ-6 (-0.88) were observed (p < .0001). Benralizumab was well-tolerated. Frequency of adverse events (AEs) was similar for benralizumab (76.0%) and placebo (73.7%) groups. Most common AEs (frequency ≥5%) reported at a greater frequency in benralizumab vs. placebo included headache, sinusitis, pyrexia, and influenza. CONCLUSIONS: These substudy data from ANDHI demonstrated the efficacy profile of benralizumab for patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma and NP, with improvement in SNOT-22 and asthma outcomes.

Baseline type 2 biomarker levels and response to tezepelumab in severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks activity of thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). In the phase IIb PATHWAY study (NCT02054130), tezepelumab significantly reduced annualized asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) versus placebo in adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma. We evaluated the effects of tezepelumab in reducing type 2 (T2) inflammatory biomarker levels in the PATHWAY population, and the relationship between baseline T2 biomarker levels and AAER. METHODS: Adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma (n = 550) were randomized to tezepelumab (70 mg or 210 mg every 4 weeks, or 280 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 52 weeks. Blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and serum total immunoglobulin (Ig)E, interleukin (IL)-5, IL-13, periostin, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), and TSLP were measured at baseline and over 52 weeks. AAERs were analyzed by baseline threshold (high/low) biomarker levels. RESULTS: Positive correlations were observed between T2 inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophil count, FeNO, IL-5, IL-13 and periostin) at baseline. At Week 52, treatment with tezepelumab 210 mg reduced all biomarker levels measured from baseline versus placebo. Exacerbations were reduced by 55-83% in the pooled tezepelumab cohort versus placebo, irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, FeNO, or serum total IgE, IL-5, IL-13, periostin, TARC, or TSLP, when these biomarkers were assessed individually. CONCLUSION: At baseline, positive correlations between specific T2 inflammatory biomarkers were observed. Tezepelumab reduced multiple T2 inflammatory biomarkers, which indicates decreased airway inflammation, and reduced exacerbations irrespective of baseline T2 biomarker profiles in patients with severe asthma.

Efficacy of Aclidinium Bromide According to Baseline Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of ASCENT-COPD Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and their combinations, are recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to determine whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differs by baseline maintenance LABA and ICS therapies. METHODS: ASCENT-COPD was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium 400 µg or placebo twice daily, via a multidose dry-powder inhaler for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and COPD assessment test (CAT) total score over 3 years, and annual moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation rate in patients receiving aclidinium or placebo with maintenance LABA monotherapy, ICS monotherapy, LABA + ICS (fixed/free), or no maintenance therapy (neither LABA nor ICS) at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 3589 patients were included (LABA, n = 227; ICS, n = 290; LABA + ICS, n = 2058; no maintenance, n = 1130). Aclidinium did not increase the risk of MACE or all-cause mortality versus placebo, regardless of baseline maintenance treatment. Reductions in moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were observed with aclidinium versus placebo in all subgroups [LABA 43% (P = 0.046); ICS 25% (P = 0.202); LABA + ICS 22% (P = 0.003); no maintenance 18% (P = 0.130)]. Aclidinium improved morning trough FEV1 irrespective of baseline therapy and CAT total scores, except for LABA and ICS subgroups, versus placebo at several time points. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and CV risk factors, the addition of aclidinium to maintenance therapy with LABA or LABA + ICS provided further benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01966107.

Patient characteristics, biomarkers and exacerbation risk in severe, uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Greater precision in asthma exacerbation risk prediction may improve outcomes. We sought to identify clinical characteristics and biomarkers associated with elevated exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: Data were pooled from seven similarly designed phase II and III randomised controlled clinical trials of biologic therapies for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma that enrolled comparable patient populations. Annualised asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) for patients randomised to placebo were assessed by baseline clinical characteristics, and by biomarker concentrations at baseline and over the study duration. RESULTS: The AAER for the 2016 patients in the combined placebo group was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84‒0.98). Baseline characteristics associated with greater AAER were frequent or severe exacerbations within the prior 12 months, nasal polyposis, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, Asian race and Asian or Western European region. AAER increased with baseline blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F ENO) concentration, with the greatest AAER occurring for patients with eosinophils ≥300 cells·µL-1 and F ENO ≥50 ppb. No relationship was observed between baseline serum IgE concentration and AAER. Combining type 2 inflammation criteria for eosinophils and F ENO had greater prognostic value than either biomarker alone. Persistent eosinophil and F ENO elevations throughout the study period were associated with greater AAER. CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbation history, maintenance corticosteroid use, nasal polyposis, Asian race, geographic region, and elevations in blood eosinophil counts and F ENO concentrations (particularly when combined and/or persistently achieving type 2 inflammation criteria) were associated with increased exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

The Impact of Exacerbation History on the Safety and Efficacy of Aclidinium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Increased Cardiovascular Risk: ASCENT-COPD Trial.

PURPOSE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality. Here, we investigate whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differ due to exacerbation history in patients with COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASCENT-COPD was a Phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium or placebo twice daily for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first MACE and all-cause mortality over 3 years, exacerbation rate during the first year on-treatment, and change in baseline pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) over 3 years. This pre-specified subgroup analysis compared outcomes in patients receiving aclidinium vs placebo. The comparison of patients with vs without an exacerbation history was added following a protocol amendment to increase enrollment in the primary study. RESULTS: Of 3589 patients, 2156 (60.1%) had ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbations in the prior year, compared with 1433 (39.9%) without prior exacerbations. Although patients with an exacerbation history had numerically higher rates of MACE and mortality regardless of treatment, aclidinium did not increase risk of MACE (≥1: hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.16; none: HR 1.27, 95% CI: 0.65-2.47; interaction P=0.233) or all-cause mortality (≥1: HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81-1.43; none: HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36-1.22; interaction P=0.154), regardless of exacerbation history. Aclidinium reduced the exacerbation rate vs placebo irrespective of exacerbation history (≥1: rate ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; none: RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.89; interaction P=0.340) and improved FEV1 (interaction P=0.633). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk, aclidinium did not increase risk of MACE or mortality and reduced exacerbation rate vs placebo, regardless of exacerbation history. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966107.