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.

Long-term safety, durability of response, cessation and switching of biologics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe asthma patients suffer from decreased quality of life, and increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and risk of death. Biologics have revolutionized treatment for severe asthma. However, with multiple biologic agents now available, clinicians must consider initial selection the long-term effectiveness of biologics. Additionally, patients have overlapping eligibilities and clinicians may consider switching between biologics for improved response. Finally, careful assessment of biologics cessation is needed for severe asthma patients who depend on these add-on therapies for asthma control. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence for long-term durability and safety varies by biologic agent. In general, initial benefits noted from these agents (ex. exacerbation reduction) is, at minimum, sustained with long term use. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events, including those requiring cessation of a biologics are low with long term use. Further studies are needed to understand the development of antidrug antibodies but currently their prevalence rates are low. Adverse events and insufficient efficacy are common reasons for biologic cessation or switching. Discontinuation maybe associated with waning of benefits but can be considered in certain situations. Biologic switching can be associated with improved asthma control. SUMMARY: Biologics are safe and effective long-term therapies for the management of asthma. Discontinuation must be carefully considered and if possible avoided. Reasons for insufficient efficacy must be evaluated and if needed, biologic switching should be considered.

Tezepelumab for Severe Asthma: One Drug Targeting Multiple Disease Pathways and Patient Types.

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease of the airways, affecting many children, adolescents, and adults worldwide. Up to 10% of people with asthma have severe disease, associated with a higher risk of hospitalizations, greater healthcare costs, and poorer outcomes. Patients with severe asthma generally require high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and additional controller medications to achieve disease control; however, many patients remain uncontrolled despite this intensive treatment. The treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma has improved with greater understanding of asthma pathways and phenotypes as well as the advent of targeted biologic therapies. Tezepelumab, a monoclonal antibody, blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin, an epithelial cytokine that has multifaceted effects on the initiation and persistence of asthma inflammation and pathophysiology. Unlike other biologic treatments, tezepelumab has demonstrated efficacy across severe asthma phenotypes, with the magnitude of effects varying by phenotype. Here we describe the anti-inflammatory effects and efficacy of tezepelumab across the most relevant phenotypes of severe asthma. Across clinical studies, tezepelumab reduced annualized asthma exacerbation rates versus placebo by 63-71% in eosinophilic severe asthma, by 58-68% in allergic severe asthma, by 67-71% in allergic and eosinophilic severe asthma, by 34-49% in type 2-low asthma, and by 31-41% in oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma. Furthermore, in all these asthma phenotypes, tezepelumab demonstrated higher efficacy in reducing exacerbations requiring hospitalizations or emergency department visits versus placebo. In patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, who commonly have multiple drivers of inflammation and disease, tezepelumab may modulate airway inflammation more extensively, as other available biologics block only specific downstream components of the inflammatory cascade.

Asthma is characterized by an immune response leading to airway inflammation. People with severe asthma may react to different triggers and develop different types of airway inflammation. In patients with asthma, a protein called thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) plays an important role in the immune response that leads to the signs and symptoms of asthma. TSLP is released by the airway lining in response to different asthma triggers, driving an immune chain reaction, leading to airway narrowing and tightening, increased airway inflammation, worsening asthma symptoms, and asthma attack. Tezepelumab is a monoclonal antibody (a type of protein) that prevents TSLP from attaching to its receptor, thereby blocking its activity, reducing airway inflammation and asthma symptoms. Tezepelumab is an add-on medicine for the treatment of people aged 12 years or older with severe asthma that is not controlled with their current medicines. In this article, we discuss how tezepelumab may work in different types of asthma, for example allergic asthma, eosinophilic asthma, and T2-low asthma. We also describe how effective tezepelumab is in these different asthma types, through the reduction of asthma attacks and improvement in lung function, symptom control, and quality of life, leading to fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations for asthma.

The Use of Albuterol/Budesonide as Reliever Therapy to Reduce Asthma Exacerbations.

Prevention of asthma exacerbations and reduction of systemic corticosteroid burden remain unmet needs in asthma. US asthma guidelines recommend concomitant short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as an alternative reliever at step 2. The Food and Drug Administration approved a pressurized metered-dose inhaler containing albuterol and budesonide for as-needed treatment or prevention of bronchoconstriction and for reducing exacerbation risk in patients with asthma aged ≥18 years. This combination is approved for use as a reliever with or without maintenance therapy, but it is not indicated for maintenance therapy (or for single maintenance and reliever therapy). Intervening with as-needed SABA-ICS during the window of opportunity to reduce inflammation during loss of asthma control can reduce exacerbation risk, by exerting both genomic and nongenomic anti-inflammatory effects. We propose that the use of albuterol-budesonide rather than albuterol as a reliever to manage episodic symptoms driven by acute bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation can improve outcomes. This combination approach, shown to decrease asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid burden in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, represents a paradigm shift for asthma treatment in the United States. Further safety and efficacy studies should provide evidence that this type of reliever should be standard of care.

The burden of severe asthma in sub-Saharan Africa: Findings from the African Severe Asthma Project.

Background: Severe asthma is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and health care utilization, but its burden in Africa is unknown. Objective: We sought to determine the burden (prevalence, mortality, and activity and work impairment) of severe asthma in 3 countries in East Africa: Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia. Methods: Using the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society case definition of severe asthma, we analyzed for the prevalence of severe asthma (requiring Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] steps 4-5 asthma medications for the previous year to achieve control) and severe refractory asthma (remains uncontrolled despite treatment with GINA steps 4-5 asthma medications) in a cohort of 1086 asthma patients who had been in care for 12 months and had received all GINA-recommended medications. Asthma control was assessed by the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ). Results: Overall, the prevalence of severe asthma and severe refractory asthma was 25.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1-28.3) and 4.6% (95% CI, 3.5-6.0), respectively. Patients with severe asthma were (nonsevere vs severe vs severe refractory) older (39, 42, 45 years, P = .011), had high skin prick test reactivity (67.1%, 76.0%, 76.0%, P = .004), had lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage (81%, 61%, 55.5%, P < .001), had lower quality of life score (129, 127 vs 121, P < .001), and had higher activity impairment (10%, 30%, 50%, P < .001). Factors independently associated with severe asthma were hypertension comorbidity; adjusted odds ratio 2.21 (1.10-4.47), P = .027, high bronchial hyperresponsiveness questionnaire score; adjusted odds ratio 2.16 (1.01-4.61), P = .047 and higher ACQ score at baseline 2.80 (1.55-5.08), P = .001. Conclusion: The prevalence of severe asthma in Africa is high and is associated with high morbidity and poor quality of life.

Dupilumab Reduces Asthma Disease Burden and Recurrent SCS Use in Patients with CRSwNP and Coexisting Asthma.

Purpose: Dupilumab significantly reduced the requirement for systemic corticosteroids (SCS) in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Patients with CRSwNP and coexisting asthma typically have a higher disease burden and have more difficulty in managing disease. Here, we report an analysis of asthma outcomes and SCS use in patients with CRSwNP and coexisting asthma. Patients and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 studies (NCT02912468/NCT02898454) in patients with severe CRSwNP and coexisting asthma (patient self-reported) from the pooled intention-to-treat population randomized to dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks or placebo. On-treatment SCS use was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), percent predicted FEV1, and the 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) were assessed at baseline and Week 24 (pooled SINUS-24/52) in patients with/without history of asthma exacerbation or prior SCS use. Results: Of 337 patients with coexisting asthma, 88 (26%) required on-treatment SCS use. The requirement for on-treatment SCS use for any reason was significantly lower with dupilumab (20/167 patients; 12%) vs placebo (68/170; 40%); hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.248 (0.150-0.409); p < 0.0001. The most frequent reasons for SCS use were nasal polyps (dupilumab 3% and placebo 27%) and asthma (2% and 9%, respectively). FEV1, percent predicted FEV1, and ACQ-6 were all significantly improved at Week 24 with dupilumab vs placebo irrespective of history of asthma exacerbation or prior SCS use (all p < 0.01). Conclusion: Dupilumab significantly reduced the requirement for SCS and improved asthma outcomes irrespective of history of asthma exacerbation or prior SCS use vs placebo in patients with CRSwNP and coexisting asthma, demonstrating concomitant reduction of SCS use and asthma disease burden in these patients.

Association of Sputum Eosinophilia With Easily Measured Type-2 Inflammatory Biomarkers in Untreated Mild Persistent Asthma.

BACKGROUND: A multicenter clinical trial in patients with mild persistent asthma indicated that response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is limited to those with sputum eosinophilia. However, testing for sputum eosinophilia is impractical in most clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: We examined associations between sputum eosinophilia and type 2 inflammatory biomarkers in untreated mild persistent asthma. METHODS: Induced sputum, blood eosinophil count (BEC), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and serum periostin were obtained twice during the 6-week run-in period in a clinical trial that enrolled patients 12 years and older with symptomatic, mild persistent asthma without controller therapy. The optimal threshold for each biomarker was based on achieving 80% or greater sensitivity. Performance of biomarkers (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], range 0.0-1.0) in predicting sputum eosinophilia 2% or greater was determined; AUCs of 0.8 to 0.9 and more than 0.9 define excellent and outstanding discrimination, respectively. RESULTS: Of 564 participants, 27% were sputum eosinophilic, 83% were atopic, 70% had BEC of 200/uL or higher or FeNO of 25 ppb or greater; 64% of participants without sputum eosinophilia had elevated BEC or FeNO. The AUCs for BEC, FeNO, and both together in predicting sputum eosinophilia were all below the threshold for excellent discrimination (AUC 0.75, 0.78, and 0.79, respectively). Periostin (in adults) had poor discrimination (AUC 0.59; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In untreated mild persistent asthma, there is substantial discordance between sputum eosinophilia, BEC, and FeNO. Until prospective trials test the ability of alternative biomarkers to predict ICS response, BEC or FeNO phenotyping may be an option to consider ICS through a shared decision-making process with consideration of other clinical features.

Expert Consensus on SABA Use for Asthma Clinical Decision-Making: A Delphi Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A modified Delphi process was undertaken to provide a US expert-led consensus to guide clinical action on short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) use. This comprised an online survey (Phase 1), forum discussion and statement development (Phase 2), and statement adjudication (Phase 3). RECENT FINDINGS: In Phase 1 (n = 100 clinicians), 12% routinely provided patients with ≥4 SABA prescriptions/year, 73% solicited SABA use frequency at every patient visit, and 21% did not consult asthma guidelines/expert reports. Phase 3 experts (n = 8) reached consensus (median Likert score, interquartile range) that use of ≥3 SABA canisters/year is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and asthma-related death (5, 4.75-5); SABA use history should be solicited at every patient visit (5, 4.75-5); usage patterns over time, not absolute thresholds, should guide response to SABA overuse (5, 4.5-5). Future asthma guidelines should include clear recommendations regarding SABA usage, using expert-led thresholds for action.

Dupilumab Efficacy in Patients with Type 2 Asthma with and without Elevated Blood Neutrophils.

Introduction: Elevated neutrophil counts in blood, sputum, or lung have been associated with poor clinical outcomes and more severe disease in patients with type 2 asthma. In the phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854), add-on dupilumab 200 and 300 mg every 2 weeks compared with matched placebo significantly reduced severe asthma exacerbations and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma. This post hoc analysis explored the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with type 2 asthma enrolled in QUEST with or without elevated blood neutrophil counts. Methods: Annualized severe exacerbation rates during the 52-week treatment period and least-squares mean change from baseline in FEV1 over time were evaluated for patients with elevated type 2 biomarkers at baseline (blood eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 20 ppb; and eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL or FeNO ≥ 50 ppb) and low (<4,000 cells/µL) or high (≥4,000 cells/µL) neutrophil counts. Results: Dupilumab significantly reduced annualized severe exacerbation rates compared with placebo during the 52-week treatment period in patients with elevated type 2 biomarkers, irrespective of baseline neutrophil count (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Significant improvements in FEV1 versus placebo were observed as early as Week 2 and over the 52-week treatment period, irrespective of baseline neutrophil count (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Safety findings were similar across all subgroups, regardless of neutrophil counts at baseline. Conclusions: Dupilumab treatment significantly reduced annualized severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe, type 2 asthma, irrespective of baseline blood neutrophil count. This trial is registered with NCT02414854.

Use of ICS and Fast-Acting Bronchodilators in Asthma: Past, Present, and Future.

KEY TAKEAWAYS: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in asthma management since most patients with asthma are treated in primary care settings. Despite continual advances in asthma care, important practice gaps remain, and the high burden of asthma exacerbations persists, with 43% of children with asthma and 41% of adults with asthma in the United States experiencing an asthma exacerbation in 2020. Uncontrolled asthma, incomplete assessment of exacerbation and asthma control history, reliance on systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA)-only therapy, and lack of patient adherence to anti-inflammatory maintenance therapies are challenges clinicians face today with asthma care. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been thought to have slow onset of action; however, recent data indicate that ICS onset of action on bronchial tissue is seconds to minutes through nongenomic effects. A large body of evidence supports the use of ICS + fast-acting bronchodilator treatments when used as needed in response to symptoms to improve asthma control and reduce rates of exacerbations. The symptoms that occur leading up to an asthma exacerbation provide a window of opportunity to intervene with ICS + fast-acting bronchodilators, potentially preventing the exacerbation and reducing the need for SCS. Incorporating patient perspectives and preferences when designing asthma regimens will help patients be more engaged in their therapy and may contribute to improved outcomes. In January 2023, a SABA-ICS combination rescue inhaler was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the first asthma rescue inhaler for as-needed use to reduce the risk of exacerbations.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of benralizumab in US subspecialist-treated adults with severe asthma: Findings from CHRONICLE.

BACKGROUND: Patients with eosinophilic severe asthma (SA) have an increased risk of asthma exacerbations. Benralizumab is approved for eosinophilic SA, and there is great value in understanding real-world effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness of benralizumab in a real-world cohort of subspecialist-treated US patients with eosinophilic SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For this analysis, eligible patients enrolled from February 2018 to February 2021, had received ≥ 1 dose of benralizumab, and had study data for ≥ 3 months before and after benralizumab initiation. The primary analysis included patients with prior exacerbations reported and 12 months of outcomes data before and after initiation. Patient outcomes occurring 6-12 months before and after initiation were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients had ≥ 3 months of follow-up before and after first benralizumab dose. For patients with 12 months (n = 107) and 6-12 months (n = 166) of data, significant reductions were observed in annualized rates of exacerbations (62%; P < 0.001 and 65%; P < 0.001, respectively), with similar reductions in the rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Benralizumab recipients with blood eosinophil counts (BEC) of ≥ 300/ µL and < 300/ µL at baseline and 12 months of data also had significant reductions in exacerbations (68%; P < 0.001, 61%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This real-world, noninterventional analysis reinforces the clinical value of benralizumab in the management of patients with eosinophilic SA.

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

Mild asthma: Lessons learned and remaining questions.

Patients living with mild disease represent the largest proportion of asthma patients. There are significant challenges in proposing a definition that would best describe these patients, while also accurately identifying at-risk individuals. Current literature suggests considerable inflammatory and clinical heterogeneity within this group. Research has shown that these patients are at risk of poor control, exacerbations, lung function decline, and death. Despite conflicting data on its prevalence, eosinophilic inflammation appears to be a predictor of poorer outcomes in mild asthma. There is an immediate need to better understand phenotypic clusters in mild asthma. It is also important to understand factors that influence disease progression and remission, as it is evident that both vary in mild asthma. Guided by robust literature that supports inhaled corticosteroid-based strategies over short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliant regimens, the management of these patients has evolved considerably. Unfortunately, SABA use remains high in clinical practice despite strong advocacy from the Global Initiative for Asthma. Future mild asthma research should explore the role of biomarkers, develop prediction tools based on composite risk scores, and explore targeted therapies at least for at-risk individuals.

Patterns of rescue and maintenance therapy claims surrounding a clinical encounter for an asthma exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: A "window of opportunity" has been proposed where anti-inflammatory therapy administration in response to symptoms could prevent exacerbation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rescue and maintenance therapy claims surrounding a severe asthma exacerbation serious enough to require a face-to-face clinical encounter. METHODS: Merative MarketScan research databases (US administrative claims 2011 to 2017) were analyzed for patients aged ≥4 years, with an asthma diagnosis code, who filled short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) and Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 3 to 5 maintenance therapies. Patients were indexed on a random SABA claim and had 12 months' continuous health plan eligibility pre- and post-index. Serious exacerbations were severe exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids prescribed from an outpatient clinic, urgent care or emergency department, or hospitalization for asthma. SABA and maintenance claims 30 days pre- and post-event were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 319,342 patients (30% children 4 to 11 years; 70% adults or adolescents ≥12 years), 27.2% of children and 16.8% of adolescents or adults experienced ≥ 1 serious exacerbation (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.81-1.88]). In the 30 days pre-event, 42.6% filled ≥1 SABA (children: 44.3%; adolescents or adults: 41.5%; OR, 1.12 [1.09-1.16]) and 57.4% filled maintenance (children: 59.0%; adolescents or adults: 56.3%; OR, 1.12 [1.08-1.15]). In the 30 days post-event, 61.4% filled SABA (children: 69.7%; adolescents or adults: 55.6%; OR, 1.84 [1.78-1.90]) and 94.8% filled maintenance (children: 98.6%; adolescents or adults: 92.2%; OR, 6.09 [5.45-6.81]). CONCLUSION: Many patients treated as having moderate-to-severe asthma escalate SABA claims before a serious exacerbation, but approximately 40% have no anti-inflammatory maintenance fill, highlighting a "window of opportunity" to prevent exacerbations using inhaled corticosteroids concomitantly with SABA as rescue.

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.